Asked by Kamogelo
Use estimate to identify them. Show how you estimated the answers
A) 6 091÷33=1 845
A) 6 091÷33=1 845
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
To estimate the result of the division \( 6,091 \div 33 \), we can round the numbers to make the calculation simpler. Here's how:
1. **Round 6,091**: This is close to 6,100, so we can round it to **6,100**.
2. **Round 33**: This is close to 30, so we can round it to **30**.
Now, we perform the estimation:
\[
\text{Estimated division} = \frac{6,100}{30}
\]
Next, simplify this division:
\[
6,100 \div 30 = \frac{6,100 \div 10}{30 \div 10} = \frac{610}{3}
\]
Now we divide \( 610 \div 3 \):
- \( 3 \) goes into \( 6 \) two times (which is \( 6 \)), with no remainder.
- Carry down the \( 1 \) to make \( 01 \) (which \( 3 \) goes into \( 0 \) times).
- Carry down the \( 0 \) to make \( 10 \) (which \( 3 \) goes into \( 10 \) three times, \( 3 \times 3 = 9 \), leaving a remainder of \( 1 \)).
- Carry down the next \( 0 \) to make \( 10 \) again (which repeats the previous calculation, we get \( 3 \)).
Thus, \( 610 \div 3 \approx 203.33\).
This estimation suggests that the quotient is roughly **200**.
Now, comparing this estimation against your exact division result:
The exact division is \( 1,845 \):
- Your estimated answer of roughly **200** is quite significant lower than \( 1,845 \), indicating perhaps a mistake in attempting to extract the relation between the numbers or during the estimation phase.
In conclusion:
- It appears based on rough estimation the quotient \( 6,091 \div 33\) should yield around approximate **200**, however the calculated value you proposed \(1,845\) indicates further inspecting or recalibrating the variables or conditions involved might be needed to address the discrepancy.
Let me know how you’d like to reassess!
1. **Round 6,091**: This is close to 6,100, so we can round it to **6,100**.
2. **Round 33**: This is close to 30, so we can round it to **30**.
Now, we perform the estimation:
\[
\text{Estimated division} = \frac{6,100}{30}
\]
Next, simplify this division:
\[
6,100 \div 30 = \frac{6,100 \div 10}{30 \div 10} = \frac{610}{3}
\]
Now we divide \( 610 \div 3 \):
- \( 3 \) goes into \( 6 \) two times (which is \( 6 \)), with no remainder.
- Carry down the \( 1 \) to make \( 01 \) (which \( 3 \) goes into \( 0 \) times).
- Carry down the \( 0 \) to make \( 10 \) (which \( 3 \) goes into \( 10 \) three times, \( 3 \times 3 = 9 \), leaving a remainder of \( 1 \)).
- Carry down the next \( 0 \) to make \( 10 \) again (which repeats the previous calculation, we get \( 3 \)).
Thus, \( 610 \div 3 \approx 203.33\).
This estimation suggests that the quotient is roughly **200**.
Now, comparing this estimation against your exact division result:
The exact division is \( 1,845 \):
- Your estimated answer of roughly **200** is quite significant lower than \( 1,845 \), indicating perhaps a mistake in attempting to extract the relation between the numbers or during the estimation phase.
In conclusion:
- It appears based on rough estimation the quotient \( 6,091 \div 33\) should yield around approximate **200**, however the calculated value you proposed \(1,845\) indicates further inspecting or recalibrating the variables or conditions involved might be needed to address the discrepancy.
Let me know how you’d like to reassess!
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.