Surely Sup Forums can solve this 4th grade test problem, right?

Surely Sup Forums can solve this 4th grade test problem, right?

Attached: 1521294404593.jpg (480x480, 51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2017/01/18/how-smart-are-you-the-stolen-money-viral-math-problem-the-correct-answer-explained/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

$100

lost $30 in change + $70 worth of goods = $100

Trick question, OP.
The jews never lose.

$100

100

Strange question, is for like some sort of ethics class?

Hunnit

The answer depends on whether the lady or the store owner is Jewish

Why is the answer not listed?

Kek

this isn't Sup Forums you fucking retard

$100 trust me I’m a Jew

200...

I'm not going to do your homework

$100, the $70 in goods and the $30 in change.

$100, but the actual loss is less than that because of mark up on the $70 of goods. Still, that's $70 gross that he would have earned. I suppose you can also factor down by the chance that goods would go unsold before spoilage and other factors.

200$

Loses 100.
Loses 70 or merchandise (cause she paid him with his own money)
Loses 30 cause he gives her change.

$170 retards

Since it's a "4th grade test problem," then the answer is probably something retarded like $30 bucks. But logically, the dumb bitch still stole $100 dollars "worth" of shit.

$30 if we're only looking at dollar bills
$100 if we include value of the goods lost as well

he got the $70 in cash back, you retarded third worlder

$100 - Profit Margin on $70 worth of goods

>Surely Sup Forums can solve this 4th grade test problem, right?
It's such a hard problem. Is it $10,000?
Oh wait, I forgot I'm talking to a libtard. Um, they both stole everything from black slaves who built America and did all the math to get us to the moon. Is that right?

Attached: SageHeil.png (500x500, 85K)

she took the 100, but gave it back. at that point he had lost 0. he then gave 70 goods and 30 dollars. so 100 loss.

$70 in goods and $30 in cash
$100 In total was lost
Come on give me a harder one

Nigger steals $100...
(blah blah blah)
How much did jew store owner loose?

with goods, stolen money and exchange
is 200

potato

Attached: d27.png (645x729, 75K)

This is the only correct answer, but an estimated $100 suffices for the sake of brevity.

Attached: 1511158869495.jpg (512x512, 40K)

Correct.

*change

DONT OVERTHINK IT

His OWN cash jesus christ you fucking idiot

most people out there are complete fucking retards

$170
$100 initial theft
$70 in stuff

100$ didn't leave store.

70$ of products left store

30$ of change left store.

so it's 100$

-100 +70 -70 -30
He loses 100 from the bill. He gets 70 back because she buys stuff with the bill, but he loses 70 worth of goods, then he gives her 30 dollars back
$130 is your answer, learn from me

It's $100, brainlets.

>lose $100
>sell some goods like to any customer
>make change like for any customer

Total loss is $100. Probably less since there is some profit on the goods.

Attached: 1516542076522.jpg (1000x584, 52K)

He lost 100 + (cost of goods he has to replace) (we don’t know what industry so we can’t correcrly assume the correct cost of goods on $70)

This.

>G: The "lady" was a nigger in disguise
what do i win?

exactly, he didn't lose it.

are you really this retarded?

Attached: 1521149841022.jpg (115x125, 2K)

He lost 30

Jokes on you, I overthink everything

Attached: 1519519712049.jpg (415x375, 41K)

170

the anwer is 200. he is stolen 100, loses 70 worth of merchandise , and also gives her 30 more. Therefore, he loses 200

> lady steals
The term "lady" can not be applied to niggers.

30$, the goods aren't money

>Brazilian logic

According to your retarded logic I can repeat this trick 100 times and only lose 30%. Spare me your mutt logic please.

$60

- Initially loses $100
- But she buys $70 worth of product from him, making, reducing his loses to $30
- But then he gives her $30 change, bringing it to $60

30 + 30 = 60

loses 100$
then loses 70$ in goods
gets back 100$
then gives lady back 30$

should be 100$ since he lost 70+30, the 100$ bill cancels itself out. since he ended up getting it back.

it depends, if youre the store owner you lost $100 to theft. if your the criminal and you get caught your going to jail for $200 in theft.

stop saving thumbnails

Attached: smallestpossiblepepe.png (4x4, 141)

>Goods are free

This is correct answer

$0, because muh insurance. also, $70 in goods isn't really $70. Plus, what if the benji was counterfeit anyways?

What is the product. What did it cost the store owner, and how much profit does he make from selling it? If the item he was selling costs him nothing to produce, then he only lost $30. If it costs him $70 to produce it, then he lost $100 - but why would he sell something for no profit? So let's just assume that if you're selling a product for $70 that it cost you $50. So the answer is that he lost somewhere around $80.

To be simple:
A has 200, B has 0.
B takes 100 from A.
Now A has 100 and B has 100.
Then B gives 70 to A, and A gives 100 to her.
So in the end, B has 130 and A has 70.

Heres your math, everything else is just interpretations.

Its a trick question. The answer depends on whether the goods are factored as losses or not.

/thread

I overthought it.

Thread proves that pol is retarded, im the only one who got it right

>steal $100
>give $100 back, receive $30 in cash and $70 in goods

Did you never make it past 3rd grade?

He actually made $100, because once he does inventory and balances his books he'll write off the theft on his taxes at the end of the year.

Depends on profit that would've been made from 70$ sale subtracted from the 100$
Not counting that its $100

He lost that 70$ in goods.

mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2017/01/18/how-smart-are-you-the-stolen-money-viral-math-problem-the-correct-answer-explained/

The answer is here. But there is no reference to the jq

>No factoring for JQ
FUGGGG :D

it is simple.

Loses 100$
Loses 70$ of stock
Loses an extra 30$.
You don't offset loss because a person pays you with your own cash.

$65
30 dollars in cash and 35 dollars worth of merchandise at wholesale price

The straight answer would be 100$

But, the value of a good in a store it's always more the the real money needed to make said good, so in the end the store owner lose less than 100$ since he reicieve actual money in exchange for goods of products that make him a profit

It's a slow day in some little town........
The sun is hot....the streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from back west is driving thru town.
He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the feed store.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her services on credit.
She, in a flash rushes to the motel and pays off her room bill with the motel owner.
The motel proprietor now places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money & leaves.

NOW,... no one produced anything...and no one earned anything...however the whole town is out of debt and is looking to the future with much optimism.

The only thing that matter is the the nigger stole $100
the lost is $100

G. They lost their asses, cause they are shit business owners and can be robbed with impunity.

Attached: 0F483EEB-CBB0-468A-968F-634DE23A5537.jpg (450x701, 71K)

Retards won't realize this.

>steal 100 dorra bill
store loses 100 dorra
>thief returns and spends 70 dorra with stolen 100 dorra bill
100 dorra stolen and 70 dorra bought with stolen dorra is 70 dorra of goods still stolen
>store gives 30 dorra change
70 dorra bought + 100 stolen dorra bill + 30 dorra unearned change is 170 dorra

$70
Because if the groceries cost 70dlls in groceries to the public, they should cost some 40 or less to the store, so they lost 40 in groceries + 30 in change
$70

200 dorra*
I'll go back to sleep now.

Man = 0
Man = Man - 100 >-100
Man = Man + (70 - 70) - 30 >-130

1- You lose $100 from the stealing (-100)
2- You get the $100 bill back (+100)
3- But you lose $70 worth of goods(-70)
4- And $30 because of the change (-30)
brainlet

The $70 worth of goods would still be most likely be sold to someone else if they had not been stolen, though.

This brings up a pretty good question desu, if someone loses goods they intended to sell for a set price, should they be compensated with the amount it cost them to buy the goods, or the amount they intended to sell them at?

After all, you break it, you buy it.

Attached: britonsnevershallbeslaves.png (1280x640, 666K)

not enough information. you don't know the merchants gross margin on those goods, plus you have to factor in his current liabilities, operating expenses and so forth. I would need a GAAP balance sheet and income statement to give you the approximate answer, an exact one is impossible because business input costs always fluctuate depending on foreign exchange rates.

Attached: big ounce.jpg (777x728, 77K)

$100, he wouldn't lose money if she hadn't stolen, so pretend she came in with honest money, that's 0 loss. Now she stole so it's $100 loss

The 30 he gives her back is change from the $100 he got back. It's actually -100, + 100, -70 -30 = -100

I think yr right

-100-70+100-30 = -100

She took 100$
She gave it back, so she's back at 0
But the fooled owner gave her 70$ worth of food and 30$ in cash


fucking brainlets.....

The answer is obvious, it says don't overthink it. She lost $30 because the $70 she lost in goods are covered by her petty theft insurance policy.

the product was some cheap shit from china that was worth $5, but the jew was selling it for $70

so she took $100, then paid $70 for something worth $5, so she lost $65 of the $100

so the store lost $35

$6305

$70 dollars in groceries
$30 in change
$1000 for consultation with loss prevention experts
$5000 to retrain a cashier when one of the tills comes back short.
$200 in gas and time off for employees to testify in the eventual court case as witnesses to theft
$15 for the bottle of Jim Beam to drink just so i can deal with all this bullshit.

Ofc he's right if you account for the goods

Yeah, this is right.

>looses $100
>then conducts business as normal
>this somehow changes the fact that he lost exactly $100

I just want to point out that regardless of the american education meme its the toothpaste and the Brazilian that cant figure this out.

The 30$ in change is already accounted for in the original 100 she stole. The store lost 170$ because of the 70 in merchandise and the original 100

lmao

simplify the problem, what if someone stole $100 then bought $100 worth of goods?

Owner lost $30 in cash and $70 worth of goods.
Thief obtained the same.

Owner lost $100, assuming the goods were priced correctly.

$100. The situation is equivalent to if she returned the money, and then stole $70 in goods and $30 from the till.

Would be 200 then