Is Sup Forums smart enough to solve this??

Is Sup Forums smart enough to solve this??

Attached: 1521229868543.jpg (480x480, 51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/0CsEDJ0Mx04
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

... 100 dollars

100 + 30 + the total wholesale value of whatever was purchased

This

/thread

100$. Posterior operations are irrelevant since this is a standard exchange of goods.

Simple. $170

She bought 70$ worth of good with the stolen $100.

That left here with $30 in stolen cash (the "change"), and $70 in goods.

The owner lost $30 in cash and $70 in goods.

The owner lost $100 worth of cash and goods.

try again

how do you know she didn't counterfeit the 100 when she left?

$30 in cash, $70 in goods.

>The owner lost $30 in cash and $70 in goods.
/this

read, it says "the $100 bill."

$100

Double Hitler dubs confirm

Because the question dictates it's the same bill

$100 because..
>Woman steals $100 (total loss $100)
>Woman grabs $70 of goods (total loss $170)
>Woman pays $100 (total loss $70)
>Woman gets $30 change (total loss $100)

so you want me to believe a proven criminal didn't commit further crimes because the question thinly suggests that she all of a sudden became an upstanding citizen?

C . . . She stole 100, gave back 70, and stole 70 dollars in merch so that's 70 in merch, and 30 in cash. C

weak bait

says the guy who believes goods hold no intrinsic value. school didn't teach you much did it faggot?

$30 + $70 of lost revenue

I don't care if fucking Hitler stole the $100 bill. Still, grammatically, "the" indicates it's the same $100 bill.

bitch i come here for the memes no to make me think gtfo with that corny bullshit

Depends on the cost of good to shelve, not enough info for accurate response.

wrong person whoops

Assuming the goods are worth nothing, A.
Assuming the goods are worth the price charged, C.
Since neither of these things are true, the question cannot be answered with information given, and thus the question cannot be answered without "over think"

Please go now.

don't @ me faggot

ye old 'problem of absolute knowledge' buttoned with a 'thus' pseudo intellectual answer

I'm a different user dip shit.

dindu niffin

Attached: insurance.jpg (1024x520, 113K)

Attached: shamefur.jpg (1920x1039, 116K)

Around $3.50

Was this a Jewish owner? She paid $70, but the value of the good was certainly marked up? I'd say she probably got $35 in actual good so the owner re-couped $35 making their total loss $65. Now if the Jew was selling cell phones he probable talked her into a service plan for $8 per month which is a recurring charge on her credit card. The Jew probably owns the bank which supplied the lady the credit card and charges %25 interest. Over the course of the year she'll pay $96 + 25% interest or $23.75 for a total payment of 119.75.

119.75 plus the $35 the Jew made because of overpricing their product is $154.75.

154.75 minus the 65 dollars in real losses amount to the Jew profiting...

$89.75

“thus”

Attached: 9E5D3424-2384-4642-B7E4-04EAEE2AF789.jpg (645x588, 67K)

200, the bill 100, 70 of goods and another 30 cash.

200.... he gained 100 but what he lost was 200, net was 100 yeah but his losses that day from that woman was 200. dont argue

>stole $100
That's all the relevant information.

The owner lost peanut butter n jelly. youtu.be/0CsEDJ0Mx04

Attached: 368f7c83880d2c0ac317ed7c540db7ef--older-women-flashing.jpg (300x400, 22K)

130

he loses the 100$ bill and the 30$ he gives her.
the rest is just a switch but no loss happened

plz go back to pol, your not wanted here or irl

Imagine if you lose $100 and find $70 you technically only lost 30. So he lost 30$

Plus what she bought with the stolen money you 'tard.

She paid for it dipshit

I want him here