What does Sup Forums think?

What does Sup Forums think?

they'll be 100 short at the end of the day.

Depends on the markup of the goods,if 0% markup it's 100 dollars. AKA not enough info and whoever wrote that quiz is a fucking moron

I'm guessing $100

$70 was bought in goods. and the cashier gave $30 in change.

Now if there are technicalities (like having to order more stuff to stock), then it would be more than $100.

What the fuck is that lady's problem? We should find her and teach her a lesson.

refer to
Restocking does not lose money, it simply puts it in different assets.

well don't forget shipping fees..

but yeah, whoever wrote it is moronic.

200, because regardless what the goods cost he could have sold them for 70 dollars of not his own money

but the lady returned the stolen $100 technically.

$100
100 from money stolen
70 from potential future sales
but 70 is returned so it doesn't matter

Oh you right you right

200

>store loses 100$ cash
>now store loses 70$ sales revenue
>provides thief with additional 30$ cash
from an accounting perspective it would count as a 200$ loss

regardless of the markup the store has lost 70$ of revenue

-$100 dollars stolen
-$70 dollars of goods gone
-$30 dollars of change
200 dollars of value given to the woman

E
She also stole the goods worth $70
You're all so fucking stupid.

nice dubs

the $100 bill was returned to the register.

It's clearly 100. This is a game for children, and here it has found a worthy home.

the answer is 100.

The $100 bill was stolen then returned to the register. The business is missing an item worth $70 and $30 in cash.

RETARD ALERT

>-$100 dollars stolen
She gave him back the 100 dollars she jacked from him though so it cancels your first point out

Depends on the goods. If they were zero cost goods that weren't going to be used anyway, like a parking spot in a parking lot that didn't fully fill, the business only lost $30. That is assuming the lady wouldn't have purchased those same goods had she not stolen the $100.

$100

You don't 'lose' merchandise by not selling it. And you don't gain anything by converting theft into legitimate sale.

Again he could have sold the $70 of merchandise to anyone else and made the same margin. So he lost $100.

One hundred dollarydoos

It's actually less than $100, but there's not enough information to determine.

$30 cash lost.
$70 of product at retail prices.

However, retail price is made up of product COST (what the owner paid to acquire the product), and then markup. So the owner lost some actual sunk costs with the product, AND potential profit.

You could make an guesstimate that a retail store would mark up by 8%:

$30 cash
$64.40 cost of goods
$5.60 lost profit

From a purely mathematical standpoint, and only counting the dollar bills exchanged, $30
Watch from the owners perspective
Woman steals the money: -100
Woman gives the bill back: +100
Woman deserves $30 change: -30
He's left with $70, meaning he only technically lost $30

you forgot $70 worth of shit bought.

B. $70

$70 of the stolen money was used to buy product, effectively making $70 of stolen product. $30 of change was given back which is effectively $30 stolen money. Because of the markup on products the store lost less than $70 worth of product, closer to $50 or $60 store cost.

As I literally said above, that was just the mathematical dollar bills exchanged. If this was a mth class, which it seems like it is, then the teacher most likely didn't factor in the products. But like other anons above said, this question has way too many variables to determine the answer

It reminds me one of those troll math questions where one equation has multiple answers.

$109.75 due to sales tax

>shipping fees

stores don't pay shipping fees. they pay a lower cost (called store cost) from the supplier. The cost of shipping is absorbed by supplier and paid to the courier.

you can't lose revenue when a product goes missing. You just get more in.

Also the $30 change came out of the $100 stolen.

You were wrong twice.

wat you assuming the sales tax now?

in my state its 8 cents on the dollar and local tax is also counted

we dont even know where this is

OP here is my thinking

lady takes $100 bucks

she comes back and give me the $100 bucks back, and walks out with $70 item + $30 bucks in her pocket

the store lost $100 bucks

It's not. This is a version of a famous math question about a hotel that gets scammed.

The idea is that people are really bad at tracking back and forth exchanges of money and often add when they should be subtracting. It is why change scams are making a comeback and "$100 bills not accepted" signs are coming back up, it is a reliable scam because most people are bad at math especially when under a time limit and stress.

Plus the "customer is always right" hoo-hah horseshit.

$100?

To be fair depending on the $70 dollars of items, they could be 30 bucks at cost. Meaning the store really only lost 60 bucks

140% markup? what is this? The apple store? Wait no what the fuck do they have that is $70 sticker price.

Lady steals 100
L: +100
O: -100

Lady give Owner 100
L: 0
O: 0

Owner give 70 worth of stuff
L: 70
O: -70

Owner give Lady 30
L: 100
O: -100

ya but OPs pic said dont overthink this problem

theres so much we dont know that its almost certain none of the amounts are close to being exact

$100 is correct. I have a degree in mathematics.

Let's see if I can do this while drunk and not looking at any other posts:

So she steals $100: -$100 from owner
She buys $70 worth of candy: even trade +$70 from money paid -$70 from candy lost

So the answer is C

The point of the question is to see if you can track the back and forth transaction.

In the famous hotel scam question there is no issue about additional taxes or markups.

fucking retard, the 100 dollars wasnt hers to begin with.

candy what the fuck bruh is she coming from a weight watchers meeting? fukken bruh she must be 800lbs

Correct

Wow I must be drunk. Why did I assume candy lol? It just says goods.

cpa here, it's 130

Patrick Murphy?

>not including losing $70 worth of goods

NO

170.

He is out the dollar value of goods.
Just because the sane phisical 100 is there changes nothing.

He lost 100, then 70 more.

show ur work man because thats bullshit

Aww shit you are right

the stolen $100 in cash was RETURNED to get the $70 worth of product and $30 of cash.

I'd call the cops that some nigress took my shit

what is the actual scam, without stealing?

Almost, you just forgot one thing:

-$100 dollars stolen
-$70 dollars of goods gone
-$30 dollars of change
-$200 dollars of value given to the woman

Then, also:

+$100 dollars of value the woman gave to the store

So the grand total is: $100 increase for the woman.

cpa here again. i've encountered this same thing before with an audit, (the numbers were just under two million) but the loss is a gaap 130

The hotel scam? I don't remember it exactly but it involves stealing money from the till and using it to buy a room and getting change.

there is no markup because it was a service not a product.

The real life scam is buying something and giving a certain bill and then when the cashier gives you your change you hand them more money back asking for a round bill and end up getting more back because they will naturally add up the change incorrectly because they are rushed and adding the numbers wrong quickly gives a nice round number.

It is reliable because most people are very bad at math and even people who are good at math tend to flounder when they only have a few seconds and are under pressure to provide speedy service.

tl;dr you trick the cashier into giving you back more "change" than you should get by swapping money back and forth quickly to confuse them.

no.

Ding ding ding, all the other answers are wrong. We know for sure he's out $30 cash, but if the goods had a 1,000,000,000% markup on them, then that's all he'd be out is $30.00 (with rounding). If the goods had no markup, he'd be out the equivalent to $100.

The register will be 100 short. Period. 100 dollars. The answer is C.

Let's rephrase the question. If I own a store, and you steal merchandise priced at $70, how much have I lost?

Well a lot less than $70, that's for sure, or I'd have been out of business long ago... Loss is a writeoff, so no business tax paid on that lost profit. Of course the value of the goods paid by the store owner must be less than he's selling them for (unless they're loss leaders).

F...

For Fuck Math... I ain't book smart enough to know.

dumb dumb, this isn't book smart. This is street smart.

This is about being able to tell when some "fool" is "tryna jack yo bread" by "tricksin you"