Acase of 24 pairs of the same kind of sport shoes cost a little more than 800 explain whether 28 per pair with tax included a good estimate of the price

  not particularly good, but within an order of magnitude

Step-by-step explanation:

Cost per pair is 800/24 = 100/3 ≈ 33. So 28 is off by more than 5, about 16% of the actual value.

For some purposes, an estimate within 16% would be "good." For other purposes, not so good. In many engineering applications, an estimate within 10% is "good enough." In retail applications where profit margins are less than 5%, an estimate that is off by 16% can make the difference between profit and loss.

The estimate is not particularly good, but may be adequate.

Based on your experiences so far, which approach to geometry do you prefer?

I think that my preference depends on the situation. Euclidean geometry has a basic understanding that makes easy to deal with common life experiences, while analytical geometry request a though more complex and it is used at its best when it comes to resolving mathematical problems in a geometrical way, like functions. 

Why?

Because they have a basic approach that is completely different. Euclidean geometry is based on shapes and numbers, while analytic geometry is based on the relationship between algebra and geometry. One is nearer the human experiences of everyday life, the other is more abstract and so more useful in other contexts. 

Which approach is easier to extend beyond two dimensions?

Intuitively it is easier to extend beyond two dimensions the euclidian approach. All you have to do is to rotate a shape on one of its bases. On the other hand, once you've grasped the concept behind the analytic geometry, perhaps it is easier in that way as you can refer to a geometrical shape in algebra forms.  

What are some situations in which one approach to geometry would prove more beneficial than the other?

everyday life situations, the first form of teaching geometry, basic understanding, visual media are all situations in which Euclidean approach is the best. Complex situation, architecture, informatics, models of prediction, function study, complex mathematics are instead the situations in which analytic approach works the best. 

Describe the situation and why you think analytical or Euclidean geometry is more applicable.

The first form of teaching geometry comes from the recognition of shapes and forms, and it is a concrete subject that could be done with concrete examples. On the other hand, analytic geometry revolves around abstract concepts that should have a solid base before being approached as otherwise, they're not understandable, and so they are used in complex models and mathematics.