What's the correct answer Sup Forums?

what's the correct answer Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QiCzI6Mac58
fuckmytoes.com
twitter.com/AnonBabble

$100

30$

Define "lose"

100

70 in product,
30 in cash

you people are all fucking idiots

$100 - profit of $70 worth of stuff = xy

30 bucks and 70 dollars worth of groceries you faggot

$130

100 dollars taken away.
30 dollars given as change.

Disregard the 70 dollars in goods because the shop is essentially paying for its own wares.

Once the $100 is stolen, it is irrelevant where the thief spends the money, even if it's at the original store.

130.
Used to do this scam

60 dollars

Depends how much the goods cost the shop owner

100 + 70 + 30 = 200

$170. $100 cash and $70 worth of goods

Nothing. The mentioned theft is just a capitalist lie abstracting a taxation structure that helped $70 worth of oats be allocated where they were needed.
Do not overthink it, brother.

I agree with this

$100

200$ the owner lost in all ways. cash and goods

Depends on COGS

>100 dollars taken away
but she gave it back in return for $70 worth of goods dumbass

- 100 theft
+100 bill is given
-70 goods are lost
-30 change is given.
-------------------------------------
- $100 is the answer.

yeah it's $100, trips have spoken

He sold some product after losing 100... That means he had profit AFTER losing the money, so I guess he lost 80-90

No you dumbdumb, she didn't GIVE anything back. She exchanged 70 dollars of stolen cash for 70 dollars worth of the store's good. Don't open a business, you'll go bankrupt.

In cash, the owner lost $30. However, the owner also gave away free goods, since the lady used $70 of the businesses' own money to purchase those goods. So depending on how they valuate those goods, there will also be a loss of inventory.

Simple version: The owner lost $100, $70 in goods and $30 in cash. The real world isn't that simplistic though.

Okay but why isn't there a multiple choice for the first part of the question "How smart are you?....."

>A. Smarter than you because I know that there should only be three dots in an ellipses

$70 is the sales price for customers at the store. The owner would have bought them for less than that to make a profit. So the owner is losing what he paid for them.

And YOU, are overthinking it.

$100

Ellipsis is the singular; ellipses is the plural.

exactly

Semantics. The point is that at the end of the sequence there is only $30 less in the cash register than there was before, and $70 worth of goods stolen, so the answer is $100

Thief takes 100 dollars. Shopkeep is at -100 dollars.

The thief hands the shopkeep 100 dollars. Shopkeep now at 0

Shopkeep gives the thief 30 dollars
Shopkeep is now at -30

Thief walks out of store with 70 dollars in groceries. Assuming that 1 dollar of groceries=1 dollar in assets for the shopkeep the shopkeep is back to -100.

The thief has stolen no additional money. No additional assets. The thief has come back and transferred 70 dollars of the shopkeepers money (one asset) into 70 dollars of groceries (another, presumably equally valuable asset).

Calling these assets "groceries" or "change" is just getting us away from the simple + or - of assets.

The question then says "don't over think it" this is intentionally misleading and the question wants us to jump to the conclusion that our initial knee jerk reaction that the thief is getting like 200 dollars worth of stuff is correct. It isn't, she maintains 100 dollars of the shopkeepers assets and the shopkeeper remains 100 dollars behind.

Wrong. He got the correct price for his goods. Ergo, he got what he would have got even if no theft ever occurred, so that doesn't even enter in to it. All that is lost is the $100 that was stolen.

It's not semantics. If you lose 30 dollars by giving away change, the residual 30 dollars she stole from you still in her purse, and 70 dollars worth of stolen goods, then the store has lost $130 dollars.

Don't open a business, you'll go bankrupt.

She swiped $100.
-100
Bitch had the nerve to take groceries...
-70
...and then pay him with his own money.
+70
But she pays with the $100 bill and gets change
-30
So now we have a balance of -$130

if you don't overthink it...

Thank you, user.

>the residual 30 dollars she stole from you still in her purse
what the fuck are you talking about, she gave him the $100 bill back and he gave her $30 change. where is this extra $30 in her purse coming from?

The owner lost 100.
Years pass.
Someone buys something worth 70, from that he has earned 10.
So that changed the margin from -100 to -90.

Once the thief steals the $100, that's the end of the problem. He's out $100.

A completely different customer could come in and pay for a $70 order with their own $100 and it would affect the records the same way. The thief isn't relevant anymore.

For the retards that don't understand basic math

>Stole 100 dollars
(Debt at 100$)
>Exchange 100$ for 70$ worth of groceries
(Debt at 70$)
>Receive 30$ in change
(Debt at 100$)

Neck yourselves.

100.

If the thief takes 100 and buys 70 dollars of goods, the shop is still out that 100 dollars. Then, he gives 30 dollars in change back, but that's part of the original 100 dollars, so it's not new money lost. She doesn't get an extra 30 dollars on top of the 100 dollars she originally took. She just gets the 100 dollars: 70 dollars of goods + 30 dollars in change.

>Green

Step 1: owner loses $100 cash
Step 2: owner receives $100 cash
Step 3: owner gives $70 product
Step 4: owner gives $30 cash

Net Cash = -100+100-30 = -30
Net Product =-70
Net Sum = -30-70 = -100

Not including income tax on the $70 sale

I missed that detail. Conceded.

So the shopkeep buys his merch for the same price he sells it for? Have you ever been to Walmart?

What if she's a feminist?

Then she's entitled to his money and he loses for being a male.

No, it's 100, she gave him 100 and got 30 in change (+100 - 30 = 70)

You've done (+100 - 30 = 70) and then done - 30 again

this.

youtu.be/QiCzI6Mac58

>..and then pay him with his own money.
>+70

no, that's +100

Doesn't matter. The value of the goods to the market is 70 dollars, so the value lost is 70 dollars of goods because he never got to sell those goods for money that wasn't stolen from him.

Feet? fuckmytoes.com

If you lose $100 from your till, the till is down $100 regardless of if this thief comes back. On the books, the owner lost $100. Them coming back is a normal transaction, correct change given. Your till is still down $100 at the end of business.

C

>don't overthink it
Nice smugpic. You're still retarded and wrong.
See

SEVENTY DOLLARS PLUS THE MERCHANT PRICE OF THE GOODS

That would be

>Steal $100 in cash
-100 balance (from owner's perspective)
>Buy $70 in groceries
-170 balance
>Pay with $100
-70 balance
>Receive $30 in change
>-100 balance

It balances out so he remains at a $100 loss
-

this
now can we all please abandon thread?

17 dollars

Girl Robs: -100
Girl take things: -70
Girl pays: +100
Girl change: -30

>-100+100-30-70=-100.
$100.

Benjamin. One.

Y'ALL ARE ALL FUCKING RETAREDED

Think about the register total. 100 dollars missing get out back in. 30 dollars are taken out and now the store inventory is short for 70 dollars worth of product. So C would be the correct answer.

The owner lost 100 dollars you stupid fucks it says so in the second line.
"...lady walks into the store and steals $100 bill"

-100
-70
+100
-30
=
-$100

>get put back in

Keep in mind, the store owner doesn't get the full value on the goods he sells.
Only the difference in the markup, minus taxes.

He lost a lot more than $100; and given how low the value is, it's probably not even worth claiming the loss through insurance, as the deductible is going to be WAY higher than the paltry sum of $100.

He lost $100 because she stole them, why would he lose anything during the trade, he exchanged his goods for her money, he didn't give her 70 dollars worth of goods, the transaction is equal for both of them (given that we don't Know how much he spent to have it).
If you start a business thinking you lose money everytime someone buys you something, quit now.

$100, assuming the shit she bought was worth exactly the $70 she paid

Dat Bitch ho stole 100 from the till.

Slap her weave off right here, honey, cuz the next two steps are legit.

At the end, she holds $70 (groceries) + 30 change. The same $100 she lifted in the first place.

~But dat bitch din't ha no munny t'begin wiff.

100$

She leaves with 70 dollars worth of product
She leaves with 30 dollars worth of cash

To the store owner, he probably made $10 off that sale.
Gotta remember, the store is down a huge number for inventory. Inventory is marked up. Profit is made off that mark up. Taxes/wages/overhead cut into that profit.

Store owner made $5 off that transaction now.

And the owner leaves (Well, stays...) with 100$ cash, important thing is that she stole 100 beforehand

The store owner originally stocked those goods for the wholesale price, let's say $40. He was expecting a $70 retail sale to net a profit of $30.

After the goods are stolen, he has to restock by spending another $40. So the net effect of the theft is that the store owner "loses" $40 in restocking costs. The retail price doesn't matter.

The true answer to the question is that he lose $30 in cash and some unknown amount less than $70 in wholesale costs.

There is probably a more subtle aspect here which is the insurance implications of goods that are insanely marked up, like diamonds. The seller would be losing a potential sale, but if they are insuring diamonds for retail price, then reimbursement from a diamond theft would far outweigh the real value of the goods.


>He lost a lot more than $100
I don't know where you got that from, it's actually less

Insurance isn't an option with such a low value of loss. Deductible would be $500 minimum.

You're right, it is less. Because he made some back on the sale... technically.

Actually none of you faggots are right.

Businesses operate on a profit margin. the $70 of groceries that the woman bought were not a $70 loss to the owner. If you assume a reasonable 30% markup over cost, the $70 worth of groceries only cost the owner about $54.

$54 in goods
$30 in change from the stolen $100
~$84 loss

Faggots.

Full God-damned unicorn, aren't you?

$100

$70 in goods
$30 change

they get the $100 back but continue to lose $70 in product and $30 in change

they have lost $100

faggots

but they'd still have made $70 if they weren't stolen. FAGGOT.

Its fucking f all u dumb twats forget the grocery are worth 70$ the questions ask how much did the owner loss not just cash

The real loser is the thief because they have lost their soul to Satan :) :) :) :) :) :)

Not if she asks forgiveness on her death bed.
That's all you need to do is ask Jesus to forgive you. Done. Clean slate. Steal God's cigar and buttfuck hit wife.
It's Heaven, bitch! Time to have FUN!

The amount would be the same if she had just stolen 30 and never can back.

200 you fucking tards. She stole the 100 from the guy and used it to buy 70 bucks worth of shit with 30 dollars of change (meaning the owner did not know it was stolen).

The owner lost 200 dollars total.

But that's not a loss. It's just profit that he didn't make. Absence of a positive doesn't mean it's a negative.

Critical thinking harder

$100 - his markup

$100 is the correct answer - any other is wrong.

She steals $100.
At the end - the shop owner does not have any extra or less money from the theft - so they're still down $100.

Depends how good the guy's accountant is. I could turn that $100 into a fucking loss carryover and this prick wouldn't have to pay taxes for ten years.

A shitty accountant would recognize $70 in revenue and tax the poor fuck for getting his own money back.

No 100 is wrong since he still loses 70 dollars worth of products along with 100 dollars at the start.

The owner loses 200 total since the hundred was stolen and used to buy 70 dollars with a product and he unknowingly gives her 30 dollars of stolen money in change.

So he loses 200 dollars not 100.

$0, he got it all back when he wrote it off as a loss on his taxes.

She paid for the 70 of goods with the stolen 100.

"How much did the owner lose?"
She steals $100
She GIVES BACK $70 for $70 worth of product - this is an EXCHANGE at this point, and the owner makes no money. The owner then returns $30 change from the $70 transaction returning the amount lost to $100.

c

The money is stolen therefore she steals 70 more dollars with of product from the store not just the 100.

Then she gets 30 dollars worth of change so in the end 170 or 200 dollars of product is stolen even if she payed with the already stolen 100.

You have no fucking clue how taxes work.

the seventy dollar things cancels itself out he is giving her 70 dollars and she is giving him 70 dollars

I hope this is bait, nobody is this retarded.