Forum
»
97% of College Kids Cant Answer this Basic Question Correctly
12-06-2016, 05:29 AM
-
#31
Originally Posted By umop3pisdn⏩
Money is more than physical paper.Anyone saying he lost $100 is wrong. The owner is down $30 in cash, and $70 in goods. But the question was how much MONEY did he lose.
The equivalence of 200 dollars came out and into his store (+100 and -100).
If it were merely returned he'd be 0, and have lost nothing. However the 70$ worth of good is exchanged with in money. Which means 70$ of profit was lost in money and he gave 30$ in change. Change is given when you give me more than the value of the item to balance it out, except it was the shop keepers own money.
Instead of being at $170 as he would have been if he wasn't robbed by this customer beforehand, he is at $-30 From before the theft. He's lost 200 dollars, he just doesn't know it.
If you can't see 200 dollars lost, you're running a charity.
AP4 Crew.
12-06-2016, 05:32 AM
-
#32
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
-
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
- Join Date: Mar 2014
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 17,915
- Rep Power: 90771
-
-
Originally Posted By Bothang⏩
but the thief gave back the $100, and left with $30 plus the goodsTheif steals $100: Now the shop is down $100 i.e -$100
Theif buys $70 worth of goods: Effectively returns $70 BUT takes $70 worth of goods i.e +/- $0
Theif gets $30 change: Shop loses $30 cash i.e -$30
so..
-100
-/+ 0
-30
shops loses $130
Theif buys $70 worth of goods: Effectively returns $70 BUT takes $70 worth of goods i.e +/- $0
Theif gets $30 change: Shop loses $30 cash i.e -$30
so..
-100
-/+ 0
-30
shops loses $130
so the answer should be $30+original cost of the goods
but the answers 0 if the owner has theft insurance
Keep mod discussions out of your sig line
Misc 2018 and 2019 NFL Pick Em Champion- Better luck next year fellas
Resident miscer for the Super Bowl 57 CHAMPION LA Rams.
12-06-2016, 05:33 AM
-
#33
- Bothang
- OG Misc Don
-
- Bothang
- OG Misc Don
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: Texas, New York, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 5,918
- Rep Power: 5181
-
-
Originally Posted By LTrigger⏩
Yeah you are rightYou forgot that the thief paid back with the original $100 dollar bill. Not just $70 So add $30 to the storess balance and you get $100 worth of goods stolen
12-06-2016, 05:36 AM
-
#34
- umop3pisdn
- Registered Muser
-
- umop3pisdn
- Registered Muser
- Join Date: Jan 2009
- Posts: 15,406
- Rep Power: 77939
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
Guy takes $100.Money is more than physical paper.
The equivalence of 200 dollars came out and into his store (+100 and -100).
If it were merely returned he'd be 0, and have lost nothing. However the 70$ worth of good is exchanged with in money. Which means 70$ of profit was lost in money and he gave 30$ in change. Change is given when you give me more than the value of the item to balance it out, except it was the shop keepers own money.
Instead of being at $170 as he would have been if he wasn't robbed by this customer for 70$ worth of goods.
He is at -30. From when he started. He's lost 200 dollars, he just doesn't know it.
The equivalence of 200 dollars came out and into his store (+100 and -100).
If it were merely returned he'd be 0, and have lost nothing. However the 70$ worth of good is exchanged with in money. Which means 70$ of profit was lost in money and he gave 30$ in change. Change is given when you give me more than the value of the item to balance it out, except it was the shop keepers own money.
Instead of being at $170 as he would have been if he wasn't robbed by this customer for 70$ worth of goods.
He is at -30. From when he started. He's lost 200 dollars, he just doesn't know it.
Guy gives $100 back.
Owner gives guy $30.
The register is $30 worse off. (Again, not counting the $70 worth of goods stolen, as the question is about money.) If we're including the $70 worth of goods, the owner is still down $100. ($70 goods + $30 cash). I dont know where you guys are getting $130 - $200 from.
The guy may as well have stolen $30 from the register, and the $70 worth of goods he wanted. The result is still the same.
12-06-2016, 05:36 AM
-
#35
- LTrigger
- Registered User
-
- LTrigger
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2016
- Age: 30
- Posts: 87
- Rep Power: 100
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
He lost $100 worth of goods, not $200.Money is more than physical paper.
The equivalence of 200 dollars came out and into his store (+100 and -100).
If it were merely returned he'd be 0, and have lost nothing. However the 70$ worth of good is exchanged with in money. Which means 70$ of profit was lost in money and he gave 30$ in change. Change is given when you give me more than the value of the item to balance it out, except it was the shop keepers own money.
Instead of being at $170 as he would have been if he wasn't robbed by this customer for 70$ worth of goods.
He is at -30. From when he started. He's lost 200 dollars, he just doesn't know it.
The equivalence of 200 dollars came out and into his store (+100 and -100).
If it were merely returned he'd be 0, and have lost nothing. However the 70$ worth of good is exchanged with in money. Which means 70$ of profit was lost in money and he gave 30$ in change. Change is given when you give me more than the value of the item to balance it out, except it was the shop keepers own money.
Instead of being at $170 as he would have been if he wasn't robbed by this customer for 70$ worth of goods.
He is at -30. From when he started. He's lost 200 dollars, he just doesn't know it.
Owner loses $100 = -100
Owner receives $100 = +100 (it was his original so it just cancels out)
Owner loses $70 worth = -70
Owner gives $30 change = -30
-100+100-70-30 = -100 dollars worth of goods
B: 250
S: The bar
D: The bar
12-06-2016, 05:36 AM
-
#36
- Bothang
- OG Misc Don
-
- Bothang
- OG Misc Don
- Join Date: Aug 2006
- Location: Texas, New York, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 5,918
- Rep Power: 5181
-
-
Originally Posted By HockeyBacon18⏩
yeh i get you i amended my postbut the thief gave back the $100, and left with $30 plus the goods
so the answer should be $30+original cost of the goods
but the answers 0 if the owner has theft insurance
so the answer should be $30+original cost of the goods
but the answers 0 if the owner has theft insurance
12-06-2016, 05:38 AM
-
#37
Originally Posted By LTrigger⏩
Except the goods were exchanged for with his money. Because this was *his* money in the first place, he is out the full 100 dollars of those goods.He lost $100 worth of goods, not $200.
Owner loses $100 = -100
Owner receives $100 = +100 (it was his original so it just cancels out)
Owner loses $70 worth = -70
Owner gives $30 change = -30
-100+100-70-30 = -100 dollars worth of goods
Owner loses $100 = -100
Owner receives $100 = +100 (it was his original so it just cancels out)
Owner loses $70 worth = -70
Owner gives $30 change = -30
-100+100-70-30 = -100 dollars worth of goods
Owner doesn't receive 100$ to cancel out his lost 100$, because it was in exchange for the goods in the first place. He has essentially paid for the thief to have 70$ worth of goods.
Its fairly simple
You start at 100 dollars.
You receive 100 dollars and give 30 back. Normally this leaves you at 170 dollars.
However because he was robbed.
He is out 100 dollars, 70 dollars comes back to him and he gives 30 dollars, leaving a negative of 30 dollars.
The difference is 200$ which is what he has lost.
AP4 Crew.
12-06-2016, 05:39 AM
-
#38
- umop3pisdn
- Registered Muser
-
- umop3pisdn
- Registered Muser
- Join Date: Jan 2009
- Posts: 15,406
- Rep Power: 77939
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
Wut...Except the goods were exchanged for with money. Because this was *his* money in the first place, he is out the full 100 dollars of those goods.
12-06-2016, 05:39 AM
-
#39
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By mintyisfresh⏩
Not quite sure about that. I'd say he loses $30 plus whatever it is the cost of goods the $70 cost him.100.... im 100% confident 97% dont get it wrong
12-06-2016, 05:40 AM
-
#40
12-06-2016, 05:40 AM
-
#41
- JPF82
- Registered User
-
- JPF82
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2012
- Location: South Carolina, United States
- Posts: 19,869
- Rep Power: 63172
-
-
Originally Posted By mintyisfresh⏩
rly bruh?100.... im 100% confident 97% dont get it wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIs6jxASBEE
12-06-2016, 05:43 AM
-
#42
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By umop3pisdn⏩
He paid a certain amount for those goods and I'm sure as shiet he didn't pay for those goods in camels or hay.Anyone saying he lost $100 is wrong. The owner is down $30 in cash, and $70 in goods. But the question was how much MONEY did he lose.
12-06-2016, 05:43 AM
-
#43
- LTrigger
- Registered User
-
- LTrigger
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2016
- Age: 30
- Posts: 87
- Rep Power: 100
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
basically the criminal stole $100 and traded it for $70 worth and $30. Nothing complicated. The criminal walks out with $70 worth of goods and $30 while the store owner still has his original $100 bill but he is left without $70 worth of goods and $30 less.Except the goods were exchanged for with money. Because this was *his* money in the first place, he is out the full 100 dollars of those goods.
B: 250
S: The bar
D: The bar
12-06-2016, 05:44 AM
-
#44
Originally Posted By umop3pisdn⏩
He started at 100, should've been at 170, but because it was money robbed from him in the first place he is now at -30.Wut...
Instead of 170 dollars he is at -30. 170- (-30) = 200.
Jesus.
AP4 Crew.
12-06-2016, 05:44 AM
-
#45
12-06-2016, 05:48 AM
-
#46
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
-
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
- Join Date: Mar 2014
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 17,915
- Rep Power: 90771
-
-
lets get one thing straight
it aint 200 cause the thief pays with the original stolen 100, so the store owner gets that first 100 back
it aint 200 cause the thief pays with the original stolen 100, so the store owner gets that first 100 back
Keep mod discussions out of your sig line
Misc 2018 and 2019 NFL Pick Em Champion- Better luck next year fellas
Resident miscer for the Super Bowl 57 CHAMPION LA Rams.
12-06-2016, 05:49 AM
-
#47
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
Remind me never to hire you as my accountant.Except the goods were exchanged for with his money. Because this was *his* money in the first place, he is out the full 100 dollars of those goods.
Owner doesn't receive 100$ to cancel out his lost 100$, because it was in exchange for the goods in the first place. He has essentially paid for the thief to have 70$ worth of goods.
Its fairly simple
You start at 100 dollars.
You receive 100 dollars and give 30 back. Normally this leaves you at 170 dollars.
However because he was robbed.
He is out 100 dollars, 70 dollars comes back to him and he gives 30 dollars, leaving a negative of 30 dollars.
The difference is 200$ which is what he has lost.
Owner doesn't receive 100$ to cancel out his lost 100$, because it was in exchange for the goods in the first place. He has essentially paid for the thief to have 70$ worth of goods.
Its fairly simple
You start at 100 dollars.
You receive 100 dollars and give 30 back. Normally this leaves you at 170 dollars.
However because he was robbed.
He is out 100 dollars, 70 dollars comes back to him and he gives 30 dollars, leaving a negative of 30 dollars.
The difference is 200$ which is what he has lost.
12-06-2016, 05:49 AM
-
#48
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
-
- HockeyBacon18
- Goof loving Jared
- Join Date: Mar 2014
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 17,915
- Rep Power: 90771
-
-
lets get one thing straight
it aint 200 cause the thief pays with the original stolen 100, so the store owner gets that first 100 back
it aint 200 cause the thief pays with the original stolen 100, so the store owner gets that first 100 back
Keep mod discussions out of your sig line
Misc 2018 and 2019 NFL Pick Em Champion- Better luck next year fellas
Resident miscer for the Super Bowl 57 CHAMPION LA Rams.
12-06-2016, 05:50 AM
-
#49
12-06-2016, 05:50 AM
-
#50
12-06-2016, 05:50 AM
-
#51
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By testbug⏩
So if I take my 1993 civic and put it on my used car lot for $1M price tag, then it's worth $1M? Damn, brb everyone is instant millionaire.its 200 you plebs
70$ worth of goods = 70$
70$ worth of goods = 70$
12-06-2016, 05:51 AM
-
#52
- LTrigger
- Registered User
-
- LTrigger
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2016
- Age: 30
- Posts: 87
- Rep Power: 100
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
Dude you are so wrong. I'm trying one last time, FROM THE OWNERS PERSPECTIVE:He started at 100, should've been at 170, but because it was money robbed from him in the first place he is now at -30.
Instead of 170 dollars he is at -30. 170- (-30) = 200.
Jesus.
Instead of 170 dollars he is at -30. 170- (-30) = 200.
Jesus.
Someone stole my $100 bill: -100
Someone wants to buy something and so he gives me $100 bill: +100
I give him the $70 worth of stuff and $30 in change: -70 - 30= -100
-100+100-100= -100
B: 250
S: The bar
D: The bar
12-06-2016, 05:53 AM
-
#53
He's not giving the money *back*.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
His knowledge of the loss doesn't change the objective reality of it.
Yeah go steal 10,000 dollars from a company and buy a $9970 product from them with *their* money. You'll only need to reimburse them 30 dollars lost.
Fuking plebs. It's not a charity. Any business will look at the 19970 they should have vs the -30 in their wallet and go for the full 20k in a civil suit or 10,000 + the retrieval of their product.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
Dude you are so wrong. I'm trying one last time, FROM THE OWNERS PERSPECTIVE:
Someone stole my $100 bill: -100
Someone wants to buy something and so he gives me $100 bill: +100
I give him the $70 worth of stuff and $30 in change: -70 - 30= -100
-100+100-100= -100
You're just using the owners ignorance to state that he isn't out 200$.Someone stole my $100 bill: -100
Someone wants to buy something and so he gives me $100 bill: +100
I give him the $70 worth of stuff and $30 in change: -70 - 30= -100
-100+100-100= -100
His knowledge of the loss doesn't change the objective reality of it.
Yeah go steal 10,000 dollars from a company and buy a $9970 product from them with *their* money. You'll only need to reimburse them 30 dollars lost.
Fuking plebs. It's not a charity. Any business will look at the 19970 they should have vs the -30 in their wallet and go for the full 20k in a civil suit or 10,000 + the retrieval of their product.
AP4 Crew.
12-06-2016, 05:55 AM
-
#54
200
- Lost 100 (stolen)
- Lost 70 (worth of goods as he technically bought his own product)
- Lost 30 (change)
The 70 dollar is the trick. While he did get paid for it, it means the 70 from the original 100 is unaccounted for. Unless I'm just overthinking.
- Lost 100 (stolen)
- Lost 70 (worth of goods as he technically bought his own product)
- Lost 30 (change)
The 70 dollar is the trick. While he did get paid for it, it means the 70 from the original 100 is unaccounted for. Unless I'm just overthinking.
Hope is the greatest form of Cope.
12-06-2016, 05:57 AM
-
#55
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
Lol using your logic if some random woman comes in and buys $50 worth of stuff and pays with $100 and gets $50 back the store owner loses $100 in that process too right?He's not giving the money *back*.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
12-06-2016, 05:57 AM
-
#56
- AndyKerrison
- Registered User
-
- AndyKerrison
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2014
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 43
- Posts: 485
- Rep Power: 5262
-
-
Originally Posted By Enguin⏩
10/10 trollingHe's not giving the money *back*.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
You're just using the owners ignorance to state that he isn't out 200$.
His knowledge of the loss doesn't change the objective reality of it.
Yeah go steal 10,000 dollars from a company and buy a $9970 product from them with *their* money. You'll only need to reimburse them 30 dollars lost.
Fuking plebs. It's not a charity.
He is exchanging the money in return for 70$ worth of goods.
The money the owner receives isn't to make up for what was taken, it's to pay for what he's selling.
However it's the owner's money in the first place, so it's the owner paying for that 70$ of goods which he isn't receiving, the thief is, on top of giving 30 dollars in change.
You're just using the owners ignorance to state that he isn't out 200$.
His knowledge of the loss doesn't change the objective reality of it.
Yeah go steal 10,000 dollars from a company and buy a $9970 product from them with *their* money. You'll only need to reimburse them 30 dollars lost.
Fuking plebs. It's not a charity.
12-06-2016, 05:58 AM
-
#57
- doughnutking
- The Booty Warrior
-
- doughnutking
- The Booty Warrior
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Posts: 23,440
- Rep Power: 97706
-
-
Whoever came up with this is dumb as fuc, as we don't know the shopkeepers profit margin on sold goods.
so yeah $100 is the right answer, but also stupid as fuc.
so yeah $100 is the right answer, but also stupid as fuc.
12-06-2016, 06:00 AM
-
#58
12-06-2016, 06:02 AM
-
#59
- donblaximus
- Registered User
-
- donblaximus
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Age: 50
- Posts: 12,396
- Rep Power: 70954
-
-
Originally Posted By doughnutking⏩
Right. It's less than $100 that he loses. How much less? Whatever the profit margin was on the $70 worth of goods.Whoever came up with this is dumb as fuc, as we don't know the shopkeepers profit margin on sold goods.
so yeah $100 is the right answer, but also stupid as fuc.
so yeah $100 is the right answer, but also stupid as fuc.
12-06-2016, 06:04 AM
-
#60
Originally Posted By donblaximus⏩
The product itself is only worth 50$. So he financially is to be up 50$. He gives 50$ back because he she has put him up 100$. This is how change works. You can't be this stupid.Lol using your logic if some random woman comes in and buys $50 worth of stuff and pays with $100 and gets $50 back the store owner loses $100 in that process too right?
If the owner started at 0 after this exchange he is at 50. If the owner started at 100 after this exchange he is at 150.
In the case here. The owner is supposed to be at 170, but is instead at -30. That is losing 200 dollars. If you're not accounting for a difference of 200 dollars and only see -30, than the owner is (ignorantly) being charitable.
AP4 Crew.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts