Are you smart enough for this, Sup Forums?

are you smart enough for this, Sup Forums?

>/biz had a 300+ post thread arguing over it

Attached: 1520992049053.jpg (480x480, 51K)

100 nigger

- steals 100
- gives 100
- gets 30 (money) + 70 (tampons) = 100

$30 you nigger

$130

she stole $100 and the shopkeeper gave her another $30

$30 buckaroos

Less than or equal to $70. $70 sale price is not the same as $70 cost. Add $30 to that and you may break 70

100.

you forgot to include his wage and utility costs for running the store

...

The "correct" answer is 100.

That said, this question is dumb as fuck, because the shop owner presumably makes SOME profit when he makes a sale. In addition he gave $30 change when $70 worth of goods were purchased so he shorted himself by paying for her tax. Fuck this question, and the idiots answering anything but 100.

Attached: 1457322021810.gif (200x242, 866K)

its f she steals 100 dollars buys 70 bucks worth of shit and gets 30 back

the owner lost 130 in cash and $70 in goods

no you retard its $70 of goods and $30 in cash because the horses name was friday.

$100
Still lost $70 worth of shit so doesn't matter that he got $70 of the original $100 back from her.

the key sentence here is "WITHOUT THE OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE."

the $100 vanished into thin air for him--- it never went """""missing"""

in his mind he earned $70 minus cost of goods.

what did the faggot owner pay for wholesale cost of the goods and what was his markup?

we are counting for the lack of emotional heartache he wouldve paid for knowing someone stole the $100 dollars. carry the 1 nuff said

200 you dumb niggers, 100 stolen comes back buys 70 with stolen money, 70 in merchandise lost+30 given in change, add that to the stolen initial amount

he gave the stolen amount back u dum

^ this

she took 100... came back and exchanged the money for something else. The owner echanged 70 of his own money, and gave her 70 in merchandise. so its still 100.

Not getting too technical but she made off with goods valued at $70 and also got $30 back so the clerk simply lost $100. If you take the values represented.
The teachers an idiot for making a question like this but he firmly points out not to over think it. Which is what you and others are doing when you start think of stupid shit like mark up and utilities and labour. If it was a factor they would have stated the price of those factors

-100$ stolen + (-70$ purchased with stolen cash) + (-30 change) =

130$ lost cash, 70$ in lost goods = 200$

She should just go back there again and again cause obviously her money keeps doubling. Now she has 200, next time she'll have 300 and so on. It's a brilliant money making scheme.

-100 stolen
+100 given
-30 change

=-30

all about the cash flows baby

>So, I found who was behind of it...

Attached: 9n66bg6b677m2543665000000.jpg (488x593, 27K)

What? It'll be noticed when he balances the till at the end of day

HE LOST 100 NIGGERS

Let's pretend it's a different customer. It's 100

+ the $100 dollars she gave back = 100 lost

- the $70 of merchandise = 100 lost

Its a math question not a trick question

Wow looking through this thread... I'm surprised there are so many idiots. I can't believe your breathing my air

does that mean he won 100 not niggers?

really? you're surprised?

If the owner knew, they would call the police and this math question would cease to exist.

The owner is out $100 and the lady is fucking nigger.

We can't possibly know how much he actually lost because we do not know the profit margin on this sale. Sure, he got $70 back but how much of that is cost of product and not profit?

This

>-100 first
>-70 from products
>+100 but changes nothing as it was stolen in the first place
>-30 change
200$

The first question is "how smart are you?" I have an IQ of 115
Second question is "how much did the owner lose?" 70 dollars worth of merchandise, $30 in change for a total dollar value of $100.
>Drops the mic

>>but isn't the products free for the owner!?

Let's assume he had $100 in the register and $100 in inventory, just to make this easy to understand.

She steals $100, so he's left with only $100 of inventory. She then goes back and exchanges the $70 for $70 worth of inventory. So now he has $70 in the register + $30 in inventory. He started out with $200 total, now has $100. He lost $100.

my bad it's 100$, i derped.
The 100$ was "given" back, i though how much did he lose without thinking about the returned 100$.

At least not everyone here is retarded

$30, plus the wholesale price of the goods (which is not the retail price).

So it appears Sup Forums is populated by absolute basement neckbeard morons who can't even glimpse what goes on in the real world.

This is no longer about math, this is sick.

>he thinks 115 is very high

Attached: 1514515281781.png (586x578, 37K)

penis

The question is how much did the OWNER lose, not how much the lady stole. Read the fucking question.

No, it does make sense. If he didn't know about the money being gone its technically going to be a 200$ lost cause he paid for the 70$ product.

So say the person did steal the 100 but didn't come back. That means he's down 100, plus 70 and the 30. Even if you have a totally new person that paid for the goods @ 70.

I have an IQ of 115 which makes me smarter than 84% of the population. 115 isnt even that high. Thats fucked up man.

You know dick all about accounting, don't you? Stolen money is still LEGALLY his money. If someone comes and buys shit legitimately with their own money, he gains, he doesn't lose. The only thing he loses is the $100 the bitch stole.

he lost nothing because fiat currency has no value.

Attached: 85e.jpg (764x551, 263K)

Hmm wait a sec

>500$
>a lady steals 100
>400$

5 minutes later someone comes

>buys 70$ of product pays a 100$
>give him 30$
>lose 70$ for product and 30$ change
>gain 100$
400+100-70-30 = 400.

500-400 = 100$

No?

I'm used to people making stupid decisions. Not people being this extremely mentally deficient. But I think the problem stems from reading comprehension too

i do? I just explained to an user that i dont think its high before i saw your post. I know its not high, but I was answering the first question.

Technically you can’t answer this question because you’re missing critical information.

>autism go
The store owners goods are sold at the rate that the woman bought them but that isn’t the rate he purchased them at.
Example:
If the cost of a bag of chips is $1 and he sells it for $2, the fact that she got it for free means the store owner lost $1 in actual cost and value but $2 in potential income.
So in this example she bought $70 worth of product meaning she stole $70 worth of potential income and $30 worth of straight cash, but if the total loss would be $65 if calculated at the purchased value.

>the lady is fucking nigger.
Nice English. I'll assume your American

I mean if you are thinking about it at face value (what's written).

But as a business it's a lost. You spent money on product to sell but then you are buying it with your money? Lol k.

>smarter than 84% of the population

this is what happens when you have niggers in your country

Technically, the sentence is grammatically correct.

you're

It depends what kind of business it is. What if she's buying a service? No money is spent on her service specifically, just the equipment that is used for all the people he services. The question isn't about how the business world works. It's about manipulating numbers.

Attached: asian maths-quizz_3266409b.jpg (620x387, 49K)

It says not to over think it.

$100 is nothing

the shop still made a profit for the day

the owner lost $0

This is cancerous

But the question is so incomplete to my mind.

Where the fuck are you retards pulling these numbers from?
>owner has X amount of $
>she steals 100$, so now he has X-100$
>she returns and buys something for 70$ by paying with 100$, so now owner has X again (minus the goods, but thats irrelevant)
>he gives her back 30$, so now he has X-30$
Which means the owner lost 30$, not counting the goods. The purchased goods can't be counted, because we don't know their real cost (how much the owner pays for them), so we can't calculate how much money is actually lost.

I'm feeling this sort of cold dread, like Sup Forums is actually not trolling this time, and 99% of idiots here are beyond all hope

feels icky

June 18

>Let's assume

That's not how this works. If you have to assume anything then there are not enough details given.

Trick question confirmed.

cheryl is such an uppity bitch

This is exactly why the store owner needs his taxes cut more.

To make up for this $1000.00 loss.

$100 assuming a 0% profit margin on the part of the owner.
He lost a hundred bucks and then exchanged seventy worth of goods for seventy worth of stolen cash.

Why are there typos in the question?
1.
...and steals "a" hundred dollar bill...
or
and steals $100 from...
2. ...how much did the owner lose????
four question marks?
3. Again "," do not "overthink" -one word- it.
You also end the sentence with an elipsis, why? What would come after this sentence?

So, with this many errors in the text, do you really expect an answer to this question? OP's a fag.

Attached: 1516482a387868.jpg (960x927, 154K)

See this for example, I see no troll signals here.
Maybe I'm getting old.

This just looks like nigger logic, or latino logic, just a mentally deficient person, an ape mashing the keyboard.

Unbelievable.

now

June 18 and May 19 don't share a day with any of the other dates. Thus, if you know the date is 19, you know the month is May. Also if you know the day is 18, you know the month is June.

Since Albert doesn't know when her birthday is, that means it's not June 18 or May 19.

That's as far as I got. I remember seeing this somewhere before though.

user is a true gentleman and a scholar, makes hypothetical pretend scenario to force you to think. This creative innovator right here is right, you realize it doesn't matter if it's the same customer or not, and then you realize the whole second part of the question is just a red herring, the store owner can't lose more money than he already lost just because he's making a sale, the sale don't change shit. If the sale should change shit we must know how much the goods are worth to the store owner, the real question is whether 70$ worth of goods = actual 70$, which the question seems to assume yes and we shouldn't overthink which i'm clearly not so leave it at that.

Then you realize you're an idiot for even trying to figure out how much more (or less) money he lost after the sale because that shit don't make no sense cunt. But i sat here for a solid 2 minutes trying to figure out how the sale changes the store owners initial -100$ loss. But the big question is how easily can we be brainwashed if this shit trips us up? I mean seriously. Illuminati confirmed.

But thanks to this modern day Einstein right here (my nigga) we can all see the truth, user saves the day.

Attached: 1496967338264.jpg (640x539, 80K)

YOU'RE the one overthinking it if you're considering all the fucking intricacies of the goddamn business world.

Yeah, that happened to me a while back. I just accept that everyone else is fucking retarded.

>nitpicking about english in a maths test

>buys 70$ WORTH of food
>we dont know the price of the goods

>Why are there typos in the question?
Because it probably was written by a non-white person.

Algebra is all about assumptions. Use X instead of $100. Still works.

were all user, you don't even know who the fuck you're talking to. kek

wow... the logic...

Attached: i_refuse.gif (343x255, 1.28M)

It's a word problem, dumbass. The language is important to understand the question.

Attached: 1517755207604.jpg (675x683, 72K)

HOW MUCH WAS FUCKING TAX!

Hey nigger. Is $100 closer to $0 or $1000?
That's right motherfucker: $100 is closer to $0, so the shop owner lost approximately $0 that day.
Fuck every single one of you.

>nitpicking about the number of question marks is a word problem

the meaning is clear, who cares

autist

>The purchased goods can't be counted, because we don't know their real cost (how much the owner pays for them), so we can't calculate how much money is actually lost.
This is correct but there are two extreme cases that we can glean some information from: Either the proprietor got the goods for free or he is selling them at cost.
In case one he lost $30. In case two he lost $100. Options A, B, and C are all potentially correct answers. D, E, and F are for niggers.

TOO MUCH

~ every Republican ever

Nope, I fucked up.

100

>Starts with $1000
>Loses $100
>Currently $900
>Loses $70 of product(s)
>Gives $30 change

Cashier loses $70 worth of product(s) and gives $30 change

>70+30 = 100

$100 loss

> do you really expect an answer to this question?
>93 replies, 43 posters

$100 easy lol

Explain professor.
>you're mom