HMMMMMM

HMMMMMM
DO NOT OVERTHINK IT

Attached: 1521663710787.jpg (480x480, 51K)

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/p/Bgn3srgHfuY/?taken-by=adi_edri9
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Again ? . . .

YOU'RE OVERTHINKING

D. 130$

He loses 100$ first. Lady buys 70$ of merchandise, which means that she loses nothing as she pays the merchandise with the owner’s money,
Then, he gives her 30$.

30$ change + 100$ = 130.

What's it like being this stupid?

You're an idiot. She steals 100$. All she did was swap 70$ of it for food for jamal.

... damn bro u retarded or something?

100 bucks

Let’s say the register has 200$. She steals 100$.
200 - 100 = 100$ left in the register.
She comes back and buys 70$ of stuff. He gives her 30$ change.
100 + 100 - 30 = 170 $ in the register.
So, now the guy just gave her 70$ of free stuff, plus another 30$. Total: 130$

100$
why
because everything else is buying and selling

>mfw you guys can’t spot someone who is clearly spewing bullshit

Attached: 1AF2FDDF-1EB5-4BF5-862F-C0ABEF422CFB.jpg (400x386, 58K)

>steals $100 bill
>$100 bill
geeze I sure dont know boss, maybe its $100

Listen faggots

The question is how much did the owner lose

We cannot possibly know because there are undefined parameters in the mix here. We do not know the wholesale cost of the product and therefore do not know how much the $70 worth of product actually cost the owner.

I swear to god this is an advanced level of retardation I didn't know existed. You are by far the stupidest person I have seen post in months.

Loses 100
Gets 70 back
Gives 30 in change

100-70+30=60

60 is the only correct answer

C. $100 profit was stolen. Her transaction might has well have been anyone walking up and spending $70 but that $100 is still missing.

You're the retard for getting trolled this hard, bud.

She took 100. She gave the hundred back but got $70 dollars worth of product and 30 in change.

It cost the owner the chance to make $100 regardless of margin. The correct answer is still $100

"chance to make $100" != $100

It depends on the probabilities. How likely is it that someone else would've bought those goods?

Exactly. This is a trick question and cannot be answered

Holy fucking shit. Are all you people actually retarded? It's $200 because he lost $70 worth of goods, a $100 bill, and $30 in change. Fucking brain dead imbeciles.

Attached: people can't be this retarded.jpg (1024x1024, 376K)

the 30 he gives her at the end is not additional money.

she gave him the full 100 back, and then walked out of the store with 70 merch +30 cash, total $100.

Wrong

Obviously I'm not because I can do math, you fucking idiot. Please elaborate on how that is somehow wrong.

Wrong

Assuming a very baseline markup of 10%...
If the 70$ of goods stolen cost the owner 63$ (let's just round that to 60$ for ease),
1. Owner is down 100$ from the theft.
2. Thief purchases 70$ of goods, which cost the owner 60$...
3. The money is not 'returned' as the goods are lost in the transaction, making it a 60$ loss of inventory.
4. The owner gives the thief 30$. In theory, the owner has lost 130$ CASH, but recovered 70$ from it, which is really only [10$] if we factor the difference in cost versus retail.
5. Up to here, we can therefore assess the following:
Cash Lost: 100$, 30$
Cash Recovered: 70$
Inventory Lost: 60$
Cost Difference: 10$

The answer (speculative):
-100 (Money Stolen)
+70 (Money Returned)
-60 (Goods Lost)
-30 (Change Lost)
=

Its a loss of 120$.

Think of it like this:
(130 : Money Given)
(60 : Cost of Goods)
(70 : Money Received)
Therefore : -190+70=120

I guess..?

Not enough info
What is the profit margin of the products?

Attached: IMG_7463.png (700x700, 21K)

Doesn't matter. The cost to the business is $100. If they choose to write down the value later is a different discussion.

instagram.com/p/Bgn3srgHfuY/?taken-by=adi_edri9

Wait, you're right, I'm the retarded one. It's $100.

Wrong

No math needed. $100 stolen. The rest is just a normal transaction, even if it is with stolen money.

Attached: mind_blown[1].gif (200x200, 1.83M)

That's cute. Its braindead

jesus christ you are retarded

>> stupidest

its most stupid nigger. stupidest isn't a word.

Attached: stupid nigger09.jpg (768x1024, 204K)

He lost 30 dollars. Why did she steal a bill?

Wrong

>I was only retarding to be pretended.
Kys

I think this is the closest anyone has come to trying to tackle the problem logically, even though your answer is wrong.

Whats Dunning Kruger like supid friend?

None because he was a bourgeois pig!
Long live the revolution.
The woman did the right thing taking $200 out of the capitalist enslavement system.

being this new

$170. The original $100 and what he paid for the goods and the profit he lost from the goods.

AM I TAKING CRAZY PILLS HERE????? THE BITCH STOLE A $100. THEN BOUGHT $70 WORTH OF SHIT, WITH HIS MONEY.
THEN HE GAVE HER $30 OF HIS MONEY ONCE MORE. HE HAS LOST $200. DOES ANYONE HERE RUN A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS BESIDES ME???

Steals $100 from the owner. Give the owner a hundred dollars. In return she gets $70 worth of goods. The man gives her $30 in change. So now the owner hss lost $70 worth of goods and $30 worth of change. Owner only lost $100 you fucking imbicile.

He also lost the worth of the merchandise

200

100 from register
70 in goods
30 from change

Except that's not how change works. Send the nukes we need a clean slate, this is ridiculous.

Just looking at these few "transactions" and ignoring tax, he lost $100.

Store
------
-$100 stolen
+$100 cash from customer
-$70 worth of goods
- $30 change

Transaction Net is -$100

Normally it would have been ...

Store
------
+$100 cash from customer
-$70 worth of goods
-$30 change

Net Transactions $0 - you give me $100 I give you up to $100 worth of goods+change.

Now obviously the store would have obtained those goods for less than price they sell so true profit and loss would be different but that's obfuscated.

The owner is given the entire $100 back. In return the person gets $70 worth of goods and $30 worth of change. Essentially the only thing that was stolen was $70 worth of goods and $30 worth of change because the owner was given the original stolen $100 back. Jesus fucking Christ you people need proffesional help.

Which adds to $100 net asset loss.

In the end she leave the store with a 100$ worth of stuff (30 cash, 70 merch)

Factoring markup the real answer is between B and C

>So, now the guy just gave her 70$ of free stuff, plus another 30$. Total: 130$

>70 + 30 = 130$

The cry-laughing pepe two posts below yours encapulates my feels about this post.

>buys $70 worth of goods
we don't know the cost of goods

Thanks captain

ok im convinced you assholes are just trolling. she used the same note to purchase his goods.

he has lost $100 from the till. thats a fucking loss. there's no recovering that sum. She doesnt fucking the return the money, and then uses her own money to buy the goods. she uses money stolen from the owner.

So effectively he loses $100, plus cost of goods (assuming $70), plus change, which is not rightfully hers. he loses $200 in total to this bitch. you retards need to read this question carefully.

$200

The register stuff is just smoke and mirrors, she stole 70$ of goods and 30$ cash.

> Sup Forums trying to do simple math
> kek

you don't buy goods for $70 and sell them for $70, you faggot

Accountant here. You don't include the profit margin into your net assets. Don't just smash terms together

The shopkeeper ends up with $100 less at the end
$30 in cash and $70 in goods
but giving something back doesn't mean you never lost it in the first place, having the same item stolen twice you still lost 2 things.
so it's a deficit of $100 but total "loss" amounts to $200

The answer is either $100 or $200 depending on the intended definition of "lose"

Attached: 13173718_595827047259556_5205007066991003758_n.jpg (343x343, 14K)

>$100 wasnt stolen because it was given back

thats where youre wrong retardo. she didnt "give the owner a hundred dollars". It's his fucking cash that she stole. he has made a loss of $100. she doesnt fucking return this money, and then uses her own money out of the goodness of her heart. she used HIS MONEY.

Sure but we are confining ourselves to these transactions only and ignoring everything else.

See

At the end of the day the only thing that was stolen was $70 worth of goods and $30 in change. That $100 bill is not Monopoly money. Imagine somebody just stole $70 worth of goods and $30 from the register the net loss would be exactly the same in the two situations.

only corect answer in this thred

People are stupid, see thread. Sometimes it's necessary to break it down and be obvious. Dude lost $100. Just because she came back and bought stuff with it doesn't change anything. Had she not stolen the $100 then the money she paid would have been "new" so to speak.

It's tree fiddy for sure

now stfu and go post in some trap thread. want my Sup Forums back.

/thread

You mean

This has to be b8
She went to the store, stole 100 bucks. Owners loss? 100 bucks.
She goes to the store, buys 70$ worth of goods.
He gets the 100$ bill back, and she gets 70$ worth of goods.
Owner’s loss? 70$
He gives her 30$ in change.
Owner’s loss? 100$.

The correct answer isn't here considering the actual price of the goods isn't equal to the retail price.

Yes, but he lost out on the profit he would gain if someone else bought them.

She was black.

No he still got that.

Tough.
Not only did the store owner lose money, he lost property value too.

You don't really lose the profit unless the items aren't replenishable.

No, because she used his money, not hers.
You have to add the profit he lost to the cost of the goods, ie if there was a 10% mark up he would be losing the 63$ he spent on them and the 7$ he would get from someone else buying them, or their ‘retail value’

the merchandise has a price. it's theoretically stealing money.

See

she steals the hundred then gives it back, so that cancels out. he loses 70 in merchandise since its not actually paid for, then loses 30 in change.
70+30=100, so C

Kek, it's kensian economics. He made money because science. That's how welfare works idiot

Just in case someone hasn't already.

Attached: Maths4.png (1195x550, 37K)

autism the post

Attached: 1517117931312.jpg (300x265, 18K)

It's a. + the cost of the merch so it's really c. But um do your own homework faggot.

Step 1. Attend a business course.
Step 2. Attend a finance course to learn costs/gross profit/net profit
Step 3. Don't type in all caps, faggot

If you look at the owners loss equal to what the woman stole. She started at 0, ended with $70 in merch and $30 in cash. He lost $100.

Thank you. :)

Really really dumb teacher wrote the question, gets told everything that's wrong with it, FIX IT BY WRITING "DON'T OVERTHINK IT".

Thank fuck I dropped out, if I'd stay in school I'd be a useless hobo by now instead of having a successful career doing what I love.

you're welcome
i saved it so it can forever live on in my folders

what level retard uses paint for math? You have no idea what the cost of goods are to the owner, but it actually has no impact on the real answer.

Well, we must factor in cost of goods sold to find the answer.

That’s not how it works at all, you mong.

Store owner lost LESS than 100 due to the fact that the money was spent in the same establishment.

In reality what happened was the lady stole 30$ plus goods PRICED at 70, but store owner does not buy it for 70 so he lost much less.

Nothing because the pleab running the register is going to cash out and eat the loss, not the owner.

technically, you are correct. If for example she stole a supreme T-shirt, he is out $31.

Not 70$ worth, just priced at 70.

The owner pays much less than the 70 he got to restock the items so he loses less.

The $100 bill that was stolen was then given back to the owner. What the owner loses is the $70 worth of goods and the $30 in change, which makes for a total of $70 + $30 = $100. The owner has lost $100.