Nolan says the relationship in the table is not proportional because the point (0, 0) does not appear in the table. Which is the best way to explain to Nolan why he is incorrect?
A. A graph made from the table will be increasing, so it is proportional.
B. Not all proportional relationships contain (0, 0), so it could be proportional.
C. The points on the graph will have even y-coordinates, so it is proportional.
D. Even though (0, 0) is not in the table, the graph is a line through (0, 0), so it is proportional.

D. Even though (0, 0) is not in the table, the graph is a line through (0, 0), so it is proportional.

Step-by-step explanation:

The table is not included but this should be the correct answer.

Linear relationships which are proportional will have to pass through the origin which is (0,0). This does not mean that on the table, the points (0,0) have to be there.

Even if it does not explicitly appear in the table, so long as the line passes the origin, it is to be considered a proportional relationship. The (0,0) might not appear on the table because only a few points the line passed through were listed but if when the line is plotted, the line goes through (0,0), it is proportional.

whole numbers.

step-by-step explanation:

we are given the average monthly rainfall (in millimeters) model r(m) for the years 1900-2009 as a function of the month number m.

as we can see m is taken for the number of months for years 1900-2009.

we know that number of months can't be a negative number or decimal number or a fraction.

so, the number of months could be only positive whole numbers.

therefore, whole numbers is more appropriate for the domain of r.