Forum
ยป
97% of College Kids Cant Answer this Basic Question Correctly
12-06-2016, 10:30 AM
-
#211
12-06-2016, 10:30 AM
-
#212
12-06-2016, 10:31 AM
-
#213
12-06-2016, 10:35 AM
-
#214
$100 as pretty much everyone said. $30 in change, $70 in goods.
The confusion lies in him coming back and using the store's money to then buy the store's goods.
As some other miscer said, the first sentence is really all that counts. The rest doesn't matter unless you want to get specific with goods vs money.
The confusion lies in him coming back and using the store's money to then buy the store's goods.
As some other miscer said, the first sentence is really all that counts. The rest doesn't matter unless you want to get specific with goods vs money.
"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -William James
My positivity thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=172531971&p=1464356701#post1464356701
My experiments with no soap and cold showers: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=173382601
balding journey: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=174082771&p=1505298321#post1505298321
12-06-2016, 10:37 AM
-
#215
Originally Posted By SuperHercules⏩
Thing is, we don't know if this is a dumb trick question or not. It doesn't say if we have to take it literally or take it as a real life situation. If we assume its a real life situation then if the store has $100 in cash and $70 in product and if said product ends up being sold they overall end up with $170. But $100 was stolen and no profit was made on $70 worth of product since it was bought with their own stolen money that means the store lost $170.Why are people making this so complicated?
A guy stole $100, no other irregular activities occurred
When he returned to buy things he paid like a regular customer and received the correct amount of change, who cares who the customer was or what bill he used
The owner is down $100 in cash that was stolen from his store, nothing else is relevant
A guy stole $100, no other irregular activities occurred
When he returned to buy things he paid like a regular customer and received the correct amount of change, who cares who the customer was or what bill he used
The owner is down $100 in cash that was stolen from his store, nothing else is relevant
no crew crew
12-06-2016, 10:41 AM
-
#216
Originally Posted By SageSwag⏩
But the thief paid with the store owner's money meaning he got that $70 in money back for the goods exchanged. This means the thief ended up with $30 of stolen money and $70 of stolen goods.Thing is, we don't know if this is a dumb trick question or not. It doesn't say if we have to take it literally or take it as a real life situation. If we assume its a real life situation then if the store has $100 in cash and $70 in product and if said product ends up being sold they overall end up with $170. But $100 was stolen and no profit was made on $70 worth of product since it was bought with their own stolen money that means the store lost $170.
I have no idea how you are getting $170. That assumes the thief didn't pay for the goods he got.
"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -William James
My positivity thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=172531971&p=1464356701#post1464356701
My experiments with no soap and cold showers: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=173382601
balding journey: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=174082771&p=1505298321#post1505298321
12-06-2016, 10:41 AM
-
#217
Originally Posted By WRXbrah⏩
This.... lmao at any other answer$30 cash + wholesale cost of $70 of goods
๐ฎ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ถ, ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
โโโโโโ๐งตMake trolls invisible: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=180234573 โโโโโโ
12-06-2016, 10:45 AM
-
#218
Originally Posted By ssg10587⏩
Exactly, you're saying he got 70$ back for the goods exchange, meaning he broke even instead of making $70 profit if he would have sold said goods for new/not stores money. Right?But the thief paid with the store owner's money meaning he got that $70 in money back for the goods exchanged. This means the thief ended up with $30 of stolen money and $70 of stolen goods.
I have no idea how you are getting $170. That assumes the thief didn't pay for the goods he got.
I have no idea how you are getting $170. That assumes the thief didn't pay for the goods he got.
no crew crew
12-06-2016, 10:47 AM
-
#219
12-06-2016, 10:47 AM
-
#220
- becomegreen
- Banned
-
- becomegreen
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2010
- Posts: 1,431
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
The question is did the owner pay $70 for $70 worth of goods at nonretail value? The right answer is he obviously did NOT. There has to be a mark up.
If he paid $70 for $70 worth of goods at nonretail value then $100 is the correct answer. But that's not the case because of the mark up.
To get the correct answer we need to know what the owner actually paid for the goods purchased then we can get a REAL definitive answer. So the answer is still $30 + $70 worth of goods at nonretail value.
I have an MBA from Harvard, a PHD from Stanford and did my post Doc from Columbia. I know my chit.
If he paid $70 for $70 worth of goods at nonretail value then $100 is the correct answer. But that's not the case because of the mark up.
To get the correct answer we need to know what the owner actually paid for the goods purchased then we can get a REAL definitive answer. So the answer is still $30 + $70 worth of goods at nonretail value.
I have an MBA from Harvard, a PHD from Stanford and did my post Doc from Columbia. I know my chit.
12-06-2016, 10:47 AM
-
#221
- miscinbro
- Registered User
-
- miscinbro
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 43
- Posts: 22,420
- Rep Power: 46435
-
-
Originally Posted By SageSwag⏩
I don't think so, it's not actually a trick. Think about the store, doing its books at the end of the day - assuming nothing else went wrong - what will happen when they count the register? There will be exactly $100 less in it than they think there should be. That's what they lost, $100 of cash.Thing is, we don't know if this is a dumb trick question or not. It doesn't say if we have to take it literally or take it as a real life situation. If we assume its a real life situation then if the store has $100 in cash and $70 in product and if said product ends up being sold they overall end up with $170. But $100 was stolen and no profit was made on $70 worth of product since it was bought with their own stolen money that means the store lost $170.
12-06-2016, 10:48 AM
-
#222
- FAPhaggot
- Hawaiian shirt hoarder
-
- FAPhaggot
- Hawaiian shirt hoarder
- Join Date: Nov 2015
- Posts: 24,226
- Rep Power: 185354
-
-
$30 cash lost, and whatever his distributor price was on the goods he sold. He's going to end up losing less than $100.
FA Crew
Always Pick 1 Crew
"Experience is something you get right after you need it."
12-06-2016, 10:48 AM
-
#223
Originally Posted By SageSwag⏩
He made $0 worth of profit since he sold $70 worth of goods for $70 of stolen money -> -70 (stolen) + 70 (thief paid)Exactly, you're saying he got 70$ back for the goods exchange, meaning he broke even instead of making $70 profit if he would have sold said goods for new/not stores money. Right?
$70 of goods storeowner lost + $30 in stolen change from storeowner = $100 lost
"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -William James
My positivity thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=172531971&p=1464356701#post1464356701
My experiments with no soap and cold showers: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=173382601
balding journey: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=174082771&p=1505298321#post1505298321
12-06-2016, 10:50 AM
-
#224
Originally Posted By ssg10587⏩
1. The $70 item might not have sold.He made $0 worth of profit since he sold $70 worth of goods for $70 of stolen money -> -70 (stolen) + 70 (thief paid)
$70 of stolen goods + $30 in stolen change
$70 of stolen goods + $30 in stolen change
2. If someone bought the $70 item, they may have avoided buying another item.
Keep it simple, it's $30 plus the wholesale COST of the item.
๐ฎ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ถ, ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
โโโโโโ๐งตMake trolls invisible: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=180234573 โโโโโโ
12-06-2016, 10:52 AM
-
#225
- muscle beast
- Registered User
-
- muscle beast
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2006
- Posts: 6,194
- Rep Power: 29984
-
-
Originally Posted By umop3pisdn⏩
/thradGuy takes $100.
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.
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, 10:53 AM
-
#226
12-06-2016, 10:54 AM
-
#227
- becomegreen
- Banned
-
- becomegreen
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2010
- Posts: 1,431
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
So you're saying that he did NOT make any profit from selling the thief $70 worth of goods?!?!? What we're saying is that whatever profit he made from that $70 transaction should be deducted from his loss. That's where we differ. You're saying the profit he made for that $70 transaction shouldn't count. I disagree.
Originally Posted By ssg10587⏩
He made $0 worth of profit since he sold $70 worth of goods for $70 of stolen money -> -70 (stolen) + 70 (thief paid)
$70 of goods storeowner lost + $30 in stolen change from storeowner = $100 lost
$70 of goods storeowner lost + $30 in stolen change from storeowner = $100 lost
12-06-2016, 10:57 AM
-
#228
Originally Posted By Luc1fer⏩
Think the assumption is $70 worth of goods is worth $70 to the store owner since it is $70 worth of opportunity that the store owner could have made.1. The $70 item might not have sold.
2. If someone bought the $70 item, they may have avoided buying another item.
Keep it simple, it's $30 plus the wholesale COST of the item.
2. If someone bought the $70 item, they may have avoided buying another item.
Keep it simple, it's $30 plus the wholesale COST of the item.
That said, no disagreement. Based on the semantics, it is $30 of cash plus value of the goods.
Think this problem has been beaten enough.
Originally Posted By becomegreen⏩
As mentioned above, the assumption was $70 worth of goods is worth $70. I understand where you are coming from though so I could see either side depending how granular you want to be.So you're saying that he did NOT make any profit from selling the thief $70 worth of goods?!?!? What we're saying is that whatever profit he made from that $70 transaction should be deducted from his loss. That's where we differ. You're saying the profit he made for that $70 transaction shouldn't count. I disagree.
"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -William James
My positivity thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=172531971&p=1464356701#post1464356701
My experiments with no soap and cold showers: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=173382601
balding journey: https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=174082771&p=1505298321#post1505298321
12-06-2016, 10:58 AM
-
#229
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
-
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
- Join Date: May 2013
- Posts: 3,864
- Rep Power: 11815
-
-
ffs sake guys. Whether the shoes were bought with the stolen money, or the thief's own money is irrelevant. It's a transaction just like any other. Its one more sale made that day.
However, when the owner goes to balance the cash at the end of the day, it will be 100$ short. Period.
However, when the owner goes to balance the cash at the end of the day, it will be 100$ short. Period.
King MANLET the 3rd
12-06-2016, 10:59 AM
-
#230
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
-
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
- Join Date: May 2013
- Posts: 3,864
- Rep Power: 11815
-
-
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Thank you thank you thank youI don't think so, it's not actually a trick. Think about the store, doing its books at the end of the day - assuming nothing else went wrong - what will happen when they count the register? There will be exactly $100 less in it than they think there should be. That's what they lost, $100 of cash.
King MANLET the 3rd
12-06-2016, 11:02 AM
-
#231
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
-
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
- Join Date: May 2013
- Posts: 3,864
- Rep Power: 11815
-
-
No no no. He lost 0 dollars in goods. It was paid for smh. Stolen money or not, the register is obviously to this fact. The register at the end of the day will, however be 100$ short. So he lost 100$ cash. Period
King MANLET the 3rd
12-06-2016, 11:02 AM
-
#232
- 300BLK
- Registered User
-
- 300BLK
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2015
- Age: 35
- Posts: 20,309
- Rep Power: 12702
-
-
Everyone is being confused because of the grammatical errors in the riddle, this is what it's saying:
- Thief steals $100 bill from owner
- Thief buys goods worth $70, he pays with the $100 bill he stole from owner
- Owner owes him $30 back for the $100 bill the thief paid with, because the thief only paid $70 but with a $100 bill
- Owner gives him the $30 in change
- Owner is again down $100 because the thief did not pay with his own money, but paid with the money he stole from the owner
The answer is $100
- Thief steals $100 bill from owner
- Thief buys goods worth $70, he pays with the $100 bill he stole from owner
- Owner owes him $30 back for the $100 bill the thief paid with, because the thief only paid $70 but with a $100 bill
- Owner gives him the $30 in change
- Owner is again down $100 because the thief did not pay with his own money, but paid with the money he stole from the owner
The answer is $100
***Black Crew***
No Face Crew
12-06-2016, 11:04 AM
-
#233
- becomegreen
- Banned
-
- becomegreen
- Banned
- Join Date: Feb 2010
- Posts: 1,431
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
You're simplifying the answer because you're tradie. Let's make it real easy for you.
Lets say thief takes $100 then brought the $100 back and bought a stick of gum with it.
What's left now?
The owner got his $100 back and the thief got a stick of gum. What did the owner lose at the end??? A STICK OF GUM. The value of the stick of gum is what the owner lost which is probably 10 cents. How can you not see that logic?
Lets say thief takes $100 then brought the $100 back and bought a stick of gum with it.
What's left now?
The owner got his $100 back and the thief got a stick of gum. What did the owner lose at the end??? A STICK OF GUM. The value of the stick of gum is what the owner lost which is probably 10 cents. How can you not see that logic?
Originally Posted By THATSfunnyOP⏩
Thank you thank you thank you
12-06-2016, 11:05 AM
-
#234
- MuckSnapper
- Bearded Princess
-
- MuckSnapper
- Bearded Princess
- Join Date: Jan 2015
- Posts: 17,959
- Rep Power: 46739
-
-
Girl responded this on my ******** post and I'm having trouble explaining why she's wrong (or maybe she's right lol)
I get where she is coming from but at a bulk price what she is saying is irrelevant and impossible to prove based on not knowing what the store paid and the NEW transaction being irrelevant to the lost 100.
Technically more than 100 cause not only did he take the 100, but the company paid for the items that he bought at the company price so they also lost the amount they spent on the items.
Someone type up an articulate response because she thinks I'm "not getting what she's saying"I get where she is coming from but at a bulk price what she is saying is irrelevant and impossible to prove based on not knowing what the store paid and the NEW transaction being irrelevant to the lost 100.
There is no thing without nothing.
_____________________________________
MCC TAutist dicord: https://discord.gg/nX2fBRu
12-06-2016, 11:06 AM
-
#235
12-06-2016, 11:06 AM
-
#236
12-06-2016, 11:12 AM
-
#237
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
-
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Age: 35
- Posts: 8,005
- Rep Power: 18646
-
-
The owner would rather have the 70 dollars than the "$70" of goods he sold, he's making a profit on those goods so the value to him is less than 70 bucks.
12-06-2016, 11:13 AM
-
#238
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
-
- THATSfunnyOP
- Penthouse resident miscer
- Join Date: May 2013
- Posts: 3,864
- Rep Power: 11815
-
-
Originally Posted By becomegreen⏩
Because his cash register at the end of the day is still 100$ short u fukface.You're simplifying the answer because you're tradie. Let's make it real easy for you.
Lets say thief takes $100 then brought the $100 back and bought a stick of gum with it.
What's left now?
The owner got his $100 back and the thief got a stick of gum. What did the owner lose at the end??? A STICK OF GUM. The value of the stick of gum is what the owner lost which is probably 10 cents. How can you not see that logic?
Lets say thief takes $100 then brought the $100 back and bought a stick of gum with it.
What's left now?
The owner got his $100 back and the thief got a stick of gum. What did the owner lose at the end??? A STICK OF GUM. The value of the stick of gum is what the owner lost which is probably 10 cents. How can you not see that logic?
How can u not see that?
He is no longer entitled to the profit of the gum. He gave away 10c worth of gum yes, but the owner is still out 99.90$ in profit. Profit the theif took from him.
I agree what your saying, but YOU are simplifying it by assuming the store owner is no longer entitled to his profit.
King MANLET the 3rd
12-06-2016, 11:14 AM
-
#239
- MuckSnapper
- Bearded Princess
-
- MuckSnapper
- Bearded Princess
- Join Date: Jan 2015
- Posts: 17,959
- Rep Power: 46739
-
-
Originally Posted By likeawashboard⏩
I know. Help me articulate why.She's wrong.
There is no thing without nothing.
_____________________________________
MCC TAutist dicord: https://discord.gg/nX2fBRu
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