Date: 08/29/2003 at 01:48:56 From: Lisa Subject: Estimating If I pay $13.20 for a 0.44 oz can of a rare truffle, about how much would I have to pay for a whole pound? I tried this: 0.44 divided into 16 = 36.36. Round to 36. 36 x $13.20 = $475.00
Date: 08/29/2003 at 12:42:38 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: Estimating Hi, Lisa. Your work is correct, as far as actually solving the problem is concerned; and that's really the hard part of the problem. If we wanted an exact answer, we would divide 16 oz/lb by 0.44 oz/can to find the number of cans per pound, and then multiply that (without rounding) by $13.40/can to find the price per pound. The answer then is 16/0.44 * 13.40 = $487.27/lb. (Note how I'm keeping the units with the numbers in order to make sure they mean the right thing.) Now, assuming that the problem says to estimate the answer rather than find the exact price, what is the best way to estimate? In a relatively complex problem like this, it will not surprise me if there are several good ways to estimate that give slightly different answers with the same amount of work. (We judge the value of an estimate by both how close it is likely to be to the exact answer, and how much work is saved.) How we estimate may depend on the order in which we do the multiplication and the division. Let's try a couple ways. First, if we divide first as you did, then we might either look for a compatible number and divide 16 by .4 to get 40, or round 0.44 to 0.5 and get 32. Both are easy; the former happens to be a little closer. Then we would multiply one of these answers by a rounded price per can, say $13. The result will be either 520 or 416. The multiplication of 32 times 13 is a little hard to do in your head, so you might want to re-round, rounding 32 down to 30 and 13 up to 15, giving an answer of 450. So that gives us three different reasonable estimates. What if we reasoned differently and first divided $13.40/can by 0.44 oz/can to get $30.45/oz, and then multiplied by 16 oz/lb to get $487.27/lb? The exact answer, of course, is the same; but we might want to round differently. I might round both 13.40 and .44 down and divide 12 by .4, giving 30, and then multiply that by 16 to get $480/lb. And if we recognized that the final answer of 16/0.44 * 13.40 could be calculated by multiplying first (as 13.40*16/0.44), we would first estimate 13.40*16 as, say, 10*20 = 200, and then divide by .4 to get $500. So I've found five different, equally reasonable estimates: 520 416 450 480 500 Of these, it turns out that the most accurate is 480; but I can't really say that any one of them is the best estimate. This is probably more than what you wanted; your answer was correct in terms of the calculation, but not quite an estimate in the sense of rounding wherever it would save work. If you're going to calculate any part with three or four digits of accuracy, you might as well not round at all. My main point here is not whether you were right or not, but that there are many valid ways to estimate, something that often is forgotten in school due to the need to grade everything! - Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Date: 08/30/2003 at 14:26:26 From: Lisa Subject: Thank you (Estimating) Wow! I am so impressed. Thank you so much for such an in-depth answer and explanation.
Search the Dr. Math Library:
Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994-2015 The Math Forum