You see which tick is nearer to the point on the number line.
150
Put 140 to 150 on a number then you check which is the nearest to 148.
You don't need a number line or anything to round 148 to the nearest tent. It is already rounded to that degree (and more).
1.i had to estimate to the nearest hundred.
The answer is in the picture
The front end estimate is 300. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time. If I had to add 282 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 282 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.
The front end estimate is 400. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time.If I had to add 364 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 364 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.
The front end estimate is 600. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time.If I had to add 555 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 555 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.
The front end estimate is 20000. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time. If I had to add 18759 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 18759 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.
The front end estimate is 2000. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time. If I had to add 1682 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 1682 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.
The front end estimate is 300000. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time. If I had to add 282189 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0. If I had to add 282189 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given - not use an estimate.