1. The problem states two equations: 10x + y = 32 and y = 3, and then claims that 4x + 3 = 7 follows. 2. Substitute y = 3 into 10x + y = 32 to get 10x + 3 = 32. 3. Simplify the equation by subtracting 3 from both sides: 10x = 29. 4. Now, the second equation given is 4x + 3 = 7. 5. Subtract 3 from both sides to isolate the term with x: 4x = 4. 6. Dividing both sides by 4 yields x = 1. 7. Check the x value in the equation 10x + y = 32 with y = 3: 10(1) + 3 = 13, which is not equal to 32. 8. Since x = 1 and y = 3 do not satisfy the first equation, the step moving from 10x + y = 32 and y = 3 to 4x + 3 = 7 is not justified by substitution or equality. 9. The statement exemplifies the use of substitution property of equality, which states that if two quantities are equal, one may be substituted for the other in an expression. 10. However, in the problem setup, the substitution leads to inconsistency, so the step attempts to use the substitution property but from incorrect initial conditions. Therefore, the property of justification referenced here is the **Substitution Property of Equality**.