The last part in particular sounds strange.
What does it mean that the bases are inverse to each other, and why does it imply that
,\ldots,\psi(v_n)\})
is a basis for

?
I would do like this: We need to prove that
,\ldots,\psi(v_n)\})
is a basis for

. So we need to check two things, namely that the vectors in the proposed basis are linearly independent and that they span all of

.
Let
+\ldots+x_n\psi(v_n)=0)
for some scalars

. Apply linearity of

to get
Remember that

is an isomorphism, so what do you know about vectors that

map to 0?
To see that the basis spans all of

, take some vector

, and choose a vector

, such that
=w)
(why does this vector

exist?).
You know that

is a basis for

, so you can write

as a linear combination of these basis vectors. Try applying

to this relation and see what happens.