Willis has noticed that when time has been one of the variables analyzed by a scatterplot he has looked at, it has always been the independent variable. He has hypothesized that time can never be a dependent variable. Does the scatterplot below confirm or invalidate Willis’s hypothesis? A graph titled Distance Traveled versus Time has Distance Traveled (miles) on the x-axis and Time (hours) on the y-axis. Plots pointed are (50, 1.2), (95, 2.3), (150, 2.6), (185, 3.8), (248, 4.4). It confirms his hypothesis because the scatterplot must have been created incorrectly. It confirms his hypothesis because time is the independent variable and distance traveled is the dependent variable. It invalidates his hypothesis because it is possible for the time a trip takes to depend on the distance that is traveled during the trip. It invalidates his hypothesis because it is possible for the distance that is traveled during a trip to depend on the time that is spent traveling.

the answer is (4,3)

since the rule for r0, 90º is (-y,x) and it was already applied to form the image, all you have to do is reverse the answer using this formula.

x/3-10=8

x/3=18

x=48

so firstly, we need to isolate the y variables to be able to solve these inequalities. firstly, add 0.5x on both sides of the first inequality and subtract 1.5x on both sides of the second inequality:

now since the slope is positive for the first inequality, this means that the line going upwards belongs to the first inequality, and the line going downwards belongs to the second inequality.

next, since y ≥ in the first inequality, this means that the shaded region will be above the first inequality's line, thus shading regions a and b.

next, since y ≤ in the second inequality, this means that the shaded region is going to be below this line, thus shading regions a and c.

since both lines shade region a, this means that region a is the solution.

step-by-step explanation:

mark brainliest!

step-by-step explanation:

i found the koficent of the linear function and i foun c acordind to the strict formula y=kx+c and then i took 2 as an x and replacet it on the formula i found and then foun the y