What's the correct answer?

what's the correct answer?

C. 100

$200

C. 100

walked in with nothing.

stole $100 bill.

gave store owner $100 bill, and in return gets $70 in merchandise, and $30 in cash.
---

because she gave the $100 bill back to the store, she is left with $70 in merchandise, and $30 in cash that she didn't have at the start.

170

100

follow-up, it would only be a $200 loss to the store if the thief got to keep the original $100, but that wouldn't make sense. it was used as the payment for what she did leave with.

£100.
he now has $30 less in the register and $70 worth of stuff in the shop
any other answer is bait or retarded

200

this isn't taking into consideration, of course, the difference between the *cost* of the goods for the shopkeeper, vs the retail price of $70, in case someone tries to get pedantic. we don't know the profit margins anyway so it would not be possible to determine the end loss for the shopkeeper.

this, however, doesn't mean it's a trick question, as it is implied the discrepancy is to be disregarded for the purposes of the question.

Fucking niggers don't even put a correct answer as an option. The answer is $100 minus the profit margin on the purchased goods minus any possible tax deductions for a capital loss.

I have some bad news, guys.

None of the options are correct. This The owner probably bought the merchandise for a lower price, say 50, and sells for 70. So the money lost would be 100 - the difference in what he payed for the merchandise and what he sold it for to the lady ($70). Since the original value of the item the answer can never be found.

he actually gained 100 dollars

...

You overthought it.

There is no appropriate answer. Saying 100 is wrong because it doesn't take into account what he payed for them, but we can't find an exact answer without knowing what he payed for them, and we have no way to do that. With the information we have it can be easily quantified into a number equation to equal 100, but the problem arises because of the word aspect.

but here lies the trick my friend. the question is what is the shopkeepers loss. he would have gained the retail price had it not been for the -100, but he instead lost the sale (through canceling out) so he lost the amount he could have made, which is $70 from the merchandise, technically.

She took 100 then gave it back. Then got 70 worth of goods and 30. So the owner is out 70 worth of goods and 30. Why's that hard?

yea, but I was specifically saying that line of thinking was not part of the answer.

No he didn't you fucking faggot. There's the correct answer and there's the wrong answer. You were too stupid to overthink it so you think it's a wrong .answer

>Being sarcastic makes you like dick
The more you know

30 is right

Shop:100 lady:0

Shop:0 lady:100

Shop:100 lady:0

Shop:70 lady:30

So the right answer is you're a moron? Sounds good, there's a 7-11 hiring nearby I've heard.

The guy is $100 dollars down before the chick goes back in. all talk about the tax, cost of foods vs retail value etc is retarded.
No matter what way you slice it, the chick going back in has to be considered a normal transaction, a mundane event which has no effect on how much he has lost. The only loss was the original theft. $100 is the only answer, the other dickheads ARE overthinking it and that doesn't make you smart. It makes you dumb to see the forest because of all the trees.

*too dumb to.....

But what about when I banged your Mom, stole back the 100 she charged, then stole your dad's 1987 Camaro? Can you still go to community college?

Assuming no shopkeeper sells for the same retail price:

If I buy a $50 item and sell it for $70 and someone pays me with fake money I'm not losing $70, I'm loosing $50.
If someone pays me with my own $100 I already lost that amount, I get back $70 from the sale, but the item cost $50 originally, so I only regained 20$ from what I lost, so I would loose $80.

So again, the right answer is 100 - the difference between normal and retail price, which is an unknown, two unknowns and one variable means the problem can't be solved.

But the store owner made a profit, because he sells his merch for more than it actually costs him, i'd day 70$

shop also lost 70 dollors worth of goods, dingus

No the lady paid it faggot

With what money ding-dong

You sir a right on the money

Store loses 100$.

The store starts with 130$ in the register (100$ bill stolen and 30$ used for change later) and 70$ worth of goods on the shelf (200$ of total value)

Lady steals 100$. The store now has 30$ in the register and 70$ worth of goods on the shelf.

The store ends with 100$ in the register and 0$ worth of goods on the shelf. (100$ total value)

The lady ends with 30$ in cash and 70$ worth of goods (100$ total value)

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they haven't taken any money yet so the till is at $0

>she steals $100 bill
So the till is -$100

>she buys something for $70 with the SAME $100
So the till is $0 again (because the bill goes back in the till, so it basically resets/nothing actually changes from her stealing it to paying it back in)

>she is given $30 change
So the till would be -$70

The 70$. she bought it

Ok retards. Lets keep this simple.
There was only one theft. The initial 100$
The second interaction was not theft in any way, it was normal commercial activity and irrelevant to any loss/profit.

I hate all 1980s-early 1990s american sports cars, they are the epitome of white trash. If Trump wants to win back supporters all he would have to do is but an IROC

Forgot to add at the end:

So she got $30, and the till is still missing $70, so the answer is $100

It's not that difficult

Where did the money come from

She paid 100. Costs 70. She got 30 back.
Shop loses 30 of the stolen money.

>>she is given $30 change
>So the till would be -$70

That's retarded

100 smucks

How can you make a profit when someone pays you with your own fuckin money?

He basically gave her $70 of goods and $30 cash.

Form the 100 she has stolen

What if the store only has 100? Then your step sister is out turning tricks again and another herpes outbreak has begun.

This. 30 wins

$100. Bitch stole $70 worth of goods and $30 cash.

I lost my time reading this and never get it back
:sadstory:

Plus $70 worth of merchandise bought with the shop's own money. Total: $100

Ok, retardier than i thought.
> woman steals $100
> someone else completely unrelated comes in, buys $70 worth of godds with $100 dollar bill, gets $30 change
How much is the shop down?
How is this outcome in any way different to the woman coming back in?

The owner lost 30£ of cash and 70¥ of merch.
but if you think. Shopkeepers usually don't get their product at cost price so the 70¢ merch probably costed him less atd the other 30$ wan earned selling products again, so if we don't count benefits as is then the answer in he lost 2€ of primary material

This, no shopkeeper sells for the same money he buys, the answer is 100 - profit margin.

Shopkeeper____________________Thief
(Money gained)_________________(Money gained)

>Steals money
-100...............................................+100
>Thief buys item, change is returned
+70 - value of retail priced object.......-70 + value of retail priced object
>Money gained total:
-100 + 70 - value of retail priced object | +100 -70 + value of retail priced object

Money gained = - Money lost

Money lost by shopkeeper = +100 - 70 + retail priced object = Unknown since the retail price is not known

This thread is the result of American education

Would still be $100 down

Before anything was stolen:
Store: 100$/ 70$ of goods Lady: 0$/0$goods -> owner has lost nothing

Before the goods are "bought"
Store: 0$/70$ goods Lady: 100$/0$ goods -> owner has lost 100$

The goods have been picked out, not paid for:
Store: 0$/0$ goods Lady: 100$/70$ goods -> Owner has lost 170$

The goods have been "paid for":
Store: 70$/0$ Goods Lady: 30$/70$ Goods. ->
Owner has lost 100$

The owner starts with 170$ worth of stuff (100$ worth of money, 70$ worth of goods. He ends up with 70$ worth of money and 0$ worth of goods. meaning that he lost 100$ worth of value, but in terms of just money he lost 30$. You would be a retard to say that answer though.

TL;DR The answer is 100$ anything else is fucking retarded.

Indeed any other answer is retarded, that is my point. There was only one theft.

you're the faggotarded, your upper bro explained retails

the answear is 100
Lets take this in reverse
Girl comes in and buy 70 worth of good with a 100$ bill, owner gives her 30 $. She comes back later and steal 100$...

How much did the owner lose....100$ you fucking idiots , can't consider any profit since the story doesnt tell.

Although your language skills are poor to retarded, your explanation is precise.

THERE IS ONLY ONCE THEFT TARDS.
THE SECOND INTERACTION IS IRRELEVANT.
FUCKING TARDS.