1. Stating the problem: We have four lines AB (horizontal), MN (diagonal), and PQ (vertical). 2. Given: AB meets MN at B with angle between them $76^\circ$. 3. Given: MN meets PQ at F with angle between them $100^\circ$. 4. Given: PQ passes through C and G so angles labelled 1 (at C) and 2 (at G) lie on the vertical line PQ. 5. Important rule: AB horizontal and PQ vertical means AB is perpendicular to PQ, so the angle between AB and PQ is $90^\circ$. 6. Formula / relation: For three lines AB, MN, PQ we have the relation for acute measures $\angle(MN,AB)+\angle(MN,PQ)=\angle(AB,PQ)=90^\circ$. 7. Substitute the given numbers: $76^\circ+100^\circ=176^\circ$, which contradicts the relation because $176^\circ\neq90^\circ$. 8. Therefore the picture as read is inconsistent: the two numeric markings cannot both represent the acute angles between those pairs of lines at the same time; at least one marking must be the obtuse/supplementary angle or be misread. 9. Regardless of that ambiguity, angle 1 at C is the intersection of AB and PQ, so it is the right angle $1=90^\circ$. 10. Angle 2 at G labels the angle associated to the pair (MN,PQ). The angle between two lines is an intrinsic property of those lines, so the marking for that pair is the same anywhere along them; the diagram gives that pair as $100^\circ$, so $2=100^\circ$. 11. Note (alternate interpretations): if the diagram intended the acute angle between MN and PQ instead of the obtuse one, then the acute measure would be its supplement $180^\circ-100^\circ=80^\circ$, and if the $76^\circ$ mark were the obtuse supplement it would be $180^\circ-76^\circ=104^\circ$. 12. Final explicit answers: $\boxed{1=90^\circ}$ and $\boxed{2=100^\circ}$ (with the alternative acute value $2=80^\circ$ if the supplementary side was intended).