Alright, let's see how smarts you fags are

>>718796738
200

>>718796738
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Depends on the price of the goods she "bought".
Lets say the shop keeper bought those produce for $30 and resells them for $70 then he lost $60

File: 1418715458985.png (3KB, 302x237px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 302x237px

$100

A little less than 100 because the owner made some money back by selling $70 to the thief.

No shit a hundred dollars cause even though she put it back in the owners pocket it counter as a new sale meaning the 100 was already gonna show up short in his drawer now that he has sold 70 worth of product he still is out 100 dollars when he takes his deposit

>>718796986
And he gave her $30 change, so $200 is the answer.

$100. Purchasing things with money is still just trading. She gives him $70, he gives her $70 worth of products. It's all the same theft, she just swapped the money she took for products of the same value.

>>718796941

DO NO OVER THINK IT
Says so on the pic

I'm gonna say $130

-$100 bill and -$30 on the change

The $70 she spends cancels out

>>718796738
100

The owner lost $100, not calculating profit margins and blah blah.

She left the store with $70 worth of goods, and $30 in cash.

130 because she lost 70 to buy but got 70 in items in return = 100. then she got 30 in change = 130$

>>718797353
This all the way

>>718797316
>>718797373
30 is just the change. it doesnt add to the amount, because it is just part of the 100 bucks

>>718797353

Bingo. Take the $100 out of the equation since it ended where it started. The owner is out $70 worth of goods and $30 cash.

$100.

none of the above, i have no idea how much the owner actually profits off of goods supposedly worth $70 retail

>>718796738
Fucking women, can't trust them not to steal your shit

>>718796738
170

You're all retarded it's 200
Autistic fucks

>>718797337
this
obviously

>>718797565
>>718797584
why?
are you dumb?

The answer is 0.
>How much money did he lose
>lose
It was stolen, it didn't get lost. It was taken against the law, it didn't just fly away with the wind.

What is the owner's overhead?

>Steal 100
>buy 70
>30 change
>200
>fucking morons

the owner did not pay 70 dollars for the goods himself, thus the goods are not actually worth 70 dollars. if anything youre giving him back some of the money as profit he makes with markup

100

100 is taken. Then given back in return for 70 + 30

>>718797474
Or you can just ignore the whole last part of the question, because if she gets $70 worth of goods for $70 then it just cancels out.

130$ because that's how much was taken in all even if you spent 70 that person got 30$ on top of that and 100$ in all back that they stole they only spent 30$

depends on the goods she bought

>>718797834
He's the owner who else is gonna pay for the stores goods that he owes his dead grandmother?

>>718797812
Nothing gets by you, Mr. Hawking.

>>718796738
$100

Shouldnt it just be 100? Buying something doesnt fix stolen moola...

>>718797895

But the $70 wasn't hers to begin with. Instead of stealing $100, she stole $30 and $70 in goods.

$100 net loss.

>>718797770
Semantics

>>718797834
The goods are worth $70 retail value though so you're fucking retarded

>>718797812
>Steal 100
>Hand back 100
>get goods worth 70
>get 30
>100
FTFY
>>fucking moron
Indeed you are

File: 1477392228708.png (81KB, 624x628px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 624x628px

>>718796738
Wouldn't it be the same to steal $70 worth of shit and $30 from the register?

Being an asshole on the internet aside I say it's either 100$ or 130$

File: 1483424836164.jpg (42KB, 637x796px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 637x796px

>>718797812

In total, the owner ended up losing an item worth 70$ and 30$ in cash. It's 100 dollars

Do all you dense 200 answering motherfuckers not realize that he gets 70 of his stolen dollars back?

Trump would be fucking disappointed in you /b/

>>718798122
Huh...?
I'm not from a native English-speaking country so I don't really know what you meant with that

>>718798246
But then she's taking 70 dollars back in goods

>>718798122
What, like that's even an argument? Retard. Nice dubs, though.

nigga stole $100 he went back and spent $100 so 100 + 100 = 200
He bought some dank memes for $70 so answer is $270
other answers are cancers and invalid

>>718798354
LMAO pls tell me ur b8ing

>>718798354
This guy gets it.

>>718798354
What are you literally retarded? or bait?

they only spent 30 of the 100$ and got 70 in change back what is so hard about this /b/?

>>718798246
I'm In exchange for 70$ worth of goods that the owner paid for hence 200

>>718798563
>hence 200
hence, you're an idiot

>>718798414
>>718798426
niggers... Im a math major so shut ur neckbeard mouths. 270 is the correct answer.

>>718796738
130 ez

>>718797499
that doesn't matter
she leaves the store with $30 in cash, and goods that the owner can sell for $70
the owner loses the $30 cash, and the $70 he could have made by selling the goods
it doesn't matter how much money he spent on the goods to begin with

>>718797337
Why'd it take so long for someone to figure this shit out

>>718798732
Agreed ,you're giving the money you stole back so the owner didn't really lose anything there getting their money back. their exchanging the money for their goods. so they got 70$ and gave another 30$ It's just a back and method like bartering but they stole the money.

The owner lost his life because he's such a fucking terrible shopkeeper that someone stole from his register, came back only five minutes later, and bought shit with the money she stole. He goes home and argues with his wife after drinking because of his failing business and the bitch leaves him while telling him she's been cheating on him for months now. He wakes up the next day and finds out his dog ran away because he's such a worthless fuck that couldn't keep his fence closed and finds out his wife slashed his tires so now he has to walk to work. He gets mugged on the way to work and a hobo pisses on him while he's knocked out. When he gets to his shop he goes behind the counter, gets his anti-nigger gun, and puts it to his head deciding to end it all but since he's a fucking worthless sack of shit, he chickens out. Dumbfuck, however, never learned trigger discipline and shoots himself in the stomach and starts to bleed to death. Right as he picks up the phone in an attempt to call 911, his wife called and started yelling at him while her boytoy fucks her like she's never been fucked before. He slowly dies while hearing his wife moan in pleasure

>>718796738
owner loses 100 (stolen), gains 100(from the purchase), loses 30(change), loses $70(in terms of the goods he sold). -100+100-30-70=-100.
owner loses 100.

>>718797316
Thats not over thinking its common sense you ameritard. This is why trump is your president now. Your all retards

You spergs in you Mcdonalds wagecuck jobs can't even math. It's 200. 130 in cash and 70 in goods.

>>718798762
Degree or GTFO

>>718798336
>>718798563

Ok look niggers I'm gonna lay it out for you

She takes 100, Woman = +100$, shopkeer = -100$

The moment she gives the shopkeeper the money, they are both at 0.

The shopkeeper hands her 30$ and lets her leave the store with 70$ worth of merchandise. The woman is now up 100$.

However, the shopkeeper has lost 70 dollars worth of merchandise and 30 dollars of cash. He is now 100 down

Now if you wanna get real fucking technical the shopkeeper is a little less than 100 down since he has likely made a profit from her consumption, since the value of the goods to the shopkeeper is less than to the consumer

>>718799261
Retards would say thats overthinking it

>>718799127
It's hilarious when idiots are so sure of themselves.
She steals $100. The owner is now out $100.
Then a normal business transaction occurs. He doesn't lose any more at that point. He's out $100. This is exactly the same as if she stole $100 and then some other person bought a $70 item for $100 and got $30 back in change.

>>718799261
the answer is 130 retard

"The owner gives her 30$ in change, how much did the owner lose?"

30$, before all this was just some bs explanation.

>>718799428
maximum overtroll

>>718799540
What about the $70 of goods?

>>718796738
$100
>next answer
$230.00

She toom 100, owner has 0, she payed 100, owner has 100, he returned 30, lady had 30. He lost 30
Simplest puzzle ever...

>>7187994
Teehee you're right. Thanks Chad.

>>718799605
Goods no money. Goods is goods liek fuude. Fuude no money silly word person

>>718797910
Condoms and DXM-only cough syrup

>>718797193
She didn't keep the $100 stupid fuck she spent it

>>718799785
So fuude is free?

Everyone who counts goods as a loss is a moron. If selling will make you lose money then shopkeepers would be out of buisness the next day.

>>718799906
That has to be the worst troll post ever

The goods didn't cost the owner $70 tho. They cost, at most $40 to the owner bc he doesn't sell things for the exact price he paid for them.

-$100 stolen
That's what the owner lost.
The $70 spent in his store is beneficial to him but he's already at a loss of $100. He doesn't loose any more or less by earning $70 or giving change of $30.

If the thief came back and just gave him $70 for no goods at all, the owner would still be out $30.

>>718799905
Plants is fuude. Plants is grown. Plants not money. So fuude no money. Onwer no lose money he give money from ching ching thing. Ching Ching moneys no stolen they his that he give. Stolen money go back to ching ching man then ching ching man give not stolen money.

this shows you how many middle school kids are in here

Can we just agree that he lost $100.
Plz. It is the right answer.

Alt scenario: a woman steals $100 and leaves, never to return. A customer comes in and buys $70 worth of goods with $100 he earned by working. The shop owner gives him $30 in change.

Now, how much did the owner loose?

>>718800407
implying these arent troll answers

>>718800767
Trick question, customer's a weed dealer and the $70 he spent was made selling the owner a quarter oz the previous night.

It's 100.
Imagine the woman comes, doesn't steal 100 but the owner gives her 70 worth of goods + 30.

>>718799086

Good thing I'm not American you silly cunt
KYS

>>718801414
420 blaze it

Nah but really the shop owner looses $100 and then when he files his taxes looses everything he has bc the government is really just an organized crime syndicate that taxes money when you earn it, when you spend it, and when you invest it if you make any revenue.

Fuck the government!

>>718801896
This.
/thread
+30 internets

>>718801896
Settle down Mcveigh

>>718799086
no u

Obama was the dumb one. He was the pansy one too.

It's $100, the value doesn't change but the object does holy fuck are you guys retarded

>>718796738
>Alright, let's see how smarts you fags are

Smart enough not to take a picture with my phone and upload it.

>>718797316
-100 stole
+100 recieved to buy things
-30 change

How the fuck are you adding stuff?

>>718802485
I wasn't the one who took the picture asswipe

>>718798349
>Semantics
>I'm implying that because you're using the literal definition of words instead of the colloquial definition, you're misinterpreting the proposed task and replying with an incorrect answer.

Did you really need help with that?
I feel bad for you.

>>718802842
Were you the one who posted a shitty picture instead of transcribing it?

>>718803263
Depends

>>718796738
D. final answer

>>718804693
>Regis rapes your asshole

The correct answer is 100.

Steals the hundred, loss is at 100. Buys 70 in goods, 30 in change. Loss is still at 100 because she is only walking away with the goods and the change, the store has the original bill back.

The true answer would likely be $30 + whatever the goods actually cost the store, plus investigative or administrative costs. Since profit margins vary from negative profits on some items (think tuna or big ticket items that come with warranties and accessories) to thousand percent markups (cables, stickers, accessories). But... let's not overthink things.

I'm surrounded by retards. The answer is $100

The store owner has $1000 worth of cash and $1000 worth of groceries giving him a total of $2000.

The woman steals $100 thus giving the store owner a new value of $1900.

She then buys $70 worth of groceries for $70 worth of (stolen) cash.

The store owners new values are $970 cash and $930 groceries.

This adds to $1900, thus, the store owner lost $100.

>>718806389
I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this, could you upload a screenshot of a spreadsheet for me to clear things up? Thanks anon

>>718796738
The owner lost 30$ cash and 70$ worth of goods, you do the math...

Impossible to tell unless we know his cost for the goods.

>>718796738
faggs who don't a own shop are going to fucked on this
$100
this just proves a point that all of 4chan is retarded

>>718797085
Shut up retard

> -$100 lost dollar bill
> -$70 lost products
> +$100 bill given
> -$30 bill given back
-100-70+100-30 = -100
=>100

>>718796855
this

>>718807545
Wrong. He got back the $100 she stole from him.

Think of it this way, she got 30 dollars and $70 of goods. Of course we cannot answer the question without knowing the profit margin of the items she got away with

Seriously WTF is wrong with you idiots. It's $100. The sale doesn't matter. Profit margins don't matter. It's just what she stole, the $100 bill. You are all over thinking which the problem specifically says not to do.

The answer is $30 + equivalent loss of her stealing $70 worth of goods.

>>718796738
Not enough info to say. Troll riddle.

>>718808772
She stole the goods and change too though. The shopkeeper might have thought it was a legitimate purchase at the time, but she and the law know it's just further theft.

>>718796738
Are you guys retarded? The answer is C because her stealing it isn't in the same instance of her buying the shit. The owner lost $100.

>>718809706
He lost less than $100, he made a profit on the $70 worth of goods

>>718809432
Let's say she steals the $100 and never comes back. And then somebody completely different comes in and buys the same $70 worth of goods. There is literally no difference to the owner in these scenarios. He still had $100 stolen, and then $70 worth of goods are purchased. Which physical piece of paper money was used to buy the $70 worth of goods is irrelevant

>>718796738
>DO NOT OVER THINK IT

THEN DON'T MAKE A STUPID ASS MOTHER FUCKING, UNDERDEVELOPED ASS PROBLEM!

It's not over thinking, it's just thinking, but you're fucking stupid ass fucking dumb ass cunts.