What's the correct answer Sup Forums?

What's the correct answer Sup Forums?

Give it a fucking rest for a while, kid.

B.

she took $100, so there's $100, got the $70 for goods, and $30. Overall, he lost $200.

None of the above

F

its a the cashier gave her 30$ he only lost thirty because it was a hundred dollar bill. he got 70 back because thats what the stuff cost

100...
that question was retarded

$170 because she actually stole the good because she didn't use her own money?

They lost 70 more dollars worth of merchandise and the 30 in change

You forgot the 30 she got back

Thinking $70 of merchandise = $70 dollars cost for owner

0+100 = 100, 100 - 70 = 30
30

E you fucknuggets

It's E because he lost 100 plus 70 in goods the 30 doesn't matter because it was from the same 100 that was stole in the beginning

C. 100. Assuming we count lost product in the loss.

He gained the $70 back because she gave back the money he stole technically. But he's he did Lose $170

This was posted for over 5 years now, but with this latest frequent posting, it may as well be the new 1/2*(1+2) bait

You may want to wait at least an hour before reposting it

He lost a $100. From the moment she stole that money the owner lost a $100. After that point nothing got stolen anymore. So he did not "loose" that 70. It is irrelevant if she paid with $100 of her own money or his money. The $30 also has nothing to do with it it's just change and it still would not matter if it was his or her money.

The cashier lost 100 dollars

G. None of the above. The owner lost whatever he paid for the $70 worth of goods plus $30.

It's $170. She took a $100 cash then got merchandise worth $70 then took the $30 change. Even though she spent money there it's still money lost. $70 in merchandise was stolen and $100 cash was stolen.

she took $100
bought $70 with it
>that's $170
he have her $30
>that's $200

probably a bit less than $200 because we don't know store owner's cost of goods on the $70 worth of stuff she "bought"

the person walked away with a $70 worth of items and $30 cash. The owner lost $100 worth of items/cash

Woman stole 100
> man - 100; woman +100
woman gave 100
> man 0; woman 0
woman got 70 in goods and 30 change
>man -100 ; woman +100

But you can also paint him as the robber as you did

The 70 isn't a gain because he's still loosing the product in the store. So it's like she's stealing money and stealing products

Hes not losing the product bc technically he got money for it dumb nigger

The 30 in change was part of the original 100, he lost 170

she got $70 worth of his goods and $30.

>$100

I bet troll

If I take 100 from your wallet without you knowing, then use 70 to buy something from you, you will expect 170 to be on your wallet, but you will still be 100 short. Add the loss of your 70 dollars worth of stuff, you have lost 170 dollars.

Question is retarded. Stores don't sell at cost. You pay 1.29$ for chocolate bar and the store pays 0.70$ to get it from the wholesaler.
This

Can someone explain am I autistic ?
She stole $100 , bought $70 , and got $30 back, so at the end she got $70 in goods and $30 in money, that's $100. So didn't the manager lose $100???? please someone explain

But you're ignoring the fact that they recovered 70 of the stolen money in exchange for the goods.

They lost 100.

>you will expect 170 to be on your wallet, but you will still be 100 short.

Congrats, dummy, you just got it

the answer is 130 because you lost 100 then you gained seventy then lost that then you lost 30 wich comes out to 130

-100
+ 70
_ 70
_ 30
______
130

For the retards:
Man has 200$ in money and 100$ in goods
>Woman steals 100 =>
Man has 100$ in money and 100$ in goods
>Woman gives back 100$ and gets 70$ in goods and 30$ in money =>
Man has 170$ in money and 30$ in goods

300-200 = 100, woman got 100$
And now stfu

It's 100. Change doesn't matter. Stock doesn't matter. He LOST 100. It's not that fucking hard.

chocolate milk

Think in terms of balances.
First the woman had nothing.
After all is said and done she got herself something that is 70 dollar worth, plus 30 dollars cash back.
Tha means she stole 100 dollars

$170, you have to keep in mind the goods as well.

C. $100

she stole $100 then traded some of it to whome she stole it from

Trading $70 worth of currency for $70 worth of stuff is all equal.

In the end, store loses $100 of value, woman gains $30+$70 worth of stuff

170 of shit was essentially stolen
100 was the net loss

Best explained response

Gold star to you

Yes this is the most correct answer here

The store only had one loss, and that's the stolen $100 bill. The other event was a trade, which has nothing to do with the theft.

$100 assuming the owner is selling his goods at cost.

Realistically he lost something just shy of $100.

The store didn't get the 70$ worth of goods back

The store lost $30 because he only gave her $30 after she stole it. 100-70=30, 30-70=40, 40+30=70 100-70=30 ?????? ure all retarded

He lost his will to live!