>>718847817 And here's the fag that overthinks a dumb question and tries to be overly intellectual, showing off around strangers on the internet that skipped this part for the sake of keeping the main idea of the question. Congratulations.
>>718847817 This is wrong. She bought 70 bucks worth for items. Even if he paid less for them it doesn't matter because now the items are worth 70, try to buy them at a lower price and he won't sell them. They cost even less to make then what he bought them but it doesn't matter because in his store the items she bought were $70
Ok dummies, she takes 100 dollars from the store so the store now has 100 dollars left she comes back and buys 70 dollars worth of goods WITH THE STORES MONEY SINCE IT IS NOT HER MONEY SHE IS TECHNICALLY STEALING 70 DOLLARS WORTH OF GOODS and then she gets 30 back so the store lost 100 dollars
She stole $100 - so 100 She bought 70 with the stolen money, so add 70 Then the owner who was snookered and didnt realize she was stealing (probably a nigger) gave her 30 in cash, so add 30 for 200 total
>>718846389 Count the original steal as being a debit from the store clerk. When the lady comes back in, it's a fair exchange of goods resulting in loss of merchandise but currency. In other words, he only lost money when the money was stolen, so it's $100.00.
If he is selling at cost as the question implies, his business is in serious trouble and losing 100$ in cash and goods are the least of his worries.
Realistically, if they purchased ad pieces sold at a loss to bait customers, he could be losing more than 100... if they're accessories that have a huge markup, the loss may be significantly less than 100.
>>718849800 In court, they'd charge her for the value of the merchandise, the hours spent in the investigation like looking for security footage, accounting time, time spent speaking to police, and if allowed by the district, the costs associated with the trial if any
>>718852404 Hence the dont over think it because like you (dumbfuck) if you want to really get in fine detail then how much did he actually lose because you'll never know how much he paid for that/those item(s)
instead of "how much did the owner lose" its quicker to solve if you think "how much did the bitch walk away with" which is $70 of goods and $30 in change, so he loses $100. Even if you want to be autistic and take how much the store owner marked up the goods into account, he can still no longer sell the specific items that she got away with, not just that their gone. So instead of losing say, $50 in what he payed, he loses the $70 in potential profit.
The lady gained $100 in combined cash/valued goods. The store owner lost $100 in combined cash/valued goods. But the store owner would be retarded to sell his goods for what he paid, so he more likely lost only around 50% of the value of the goods, so his loss is more likely around $65. But this does not account for other types of overhead (rent/wages paid/etc.) that cut into his overall profits.
TL;DR: The problem is not properly defined, so we don't know what the store owner's losses are, exactly.
>>718853997 No faggot, the store's expenses are irrelevant to the question. The store _lost_ $100. Revenue and profit on another transaction (the woman coming back, a different woman coming in, whatever) are not pertinent.
Does your thinking about the question change if: >an 18 year old unemployed woman steals $100 from a store >out of shame and fear of prosecution she does not return to the store for decades >36 years later, the 54 year old woman, now wealthy and certain the incident has been forgotten and never discovered, returns to the store and purchases $70 worth of products with a $100 bill that she earned legitimately, receiving $30 in change
>>718854366 >should not overthink it I mean, if you want to be a retard and give an incorrect answer, sure. Go ahead. In this case, it's not overthinking-- you are suggesting that we oversimplify a basic business model to do grade-school math. Anyone in the real world would be able to assess what the loss really was. If the problem asked a more pertinent question-- such as, "What loss would the business owner show in his books?" ($100) or, "How much combined cash/goods did the lady effectively steal?" then OP's problem would be simple and direct. But the problem asked a more complicated question, that cannot be accurately assessed with the provided information.
TL;DR: Don't call out others for thinking logically about a logical problem, because you're too lazy to assess the problem properly.
>>718855144 You're still overthinking it, faggot. The owners profits and losses from daily business are irrelevant to the question. The woman later spending $70 is only another one of those transactions. It dies not matter "how" she got the $70. It does not matter that she paid with $100, or got change. It does not matter that the face value of the bill she used is the same as the amount she stole.
>>718854229 Ill answer for him >1. Who said this was a drugstore, you fucking moron? >2. You can't lose profit that you never had, genius. We're talking about what he had then lost. >3. If someone steals $30 and your iPod from you (You paid $50 for the iPod), you don't say you lost $200 because you were selling the iPod for $170. >4. Courts want to know the RETAIL "value" of what was taken for legal re-reimbursement purposes. Also, she BOUGHT the item so he still got the "profit" it was just that it was out of his stolen money to begin with.
>You honestly think way too much of yourself. Find yourself a good geometry teacher. You can knock out math practice and logical statements all in one.
Do you mean how much money did he lose out of the register only? Or total of the money stolen plus goods? The answer is 100 if just register, 170 if the latter. No thinking involved really. If you got any other answer you arever a complete loser scumbag
>>718855144 You just won't accept that the question does not ask for any other steps than the ones that get you to $100.
We won't get into the actual loss of the owner. We won't get into the fluctuation of the dollar. We won't get into the paycheck the cashier should receive for helping him. We won't get into the fact that the woman could've altered our timeline in such a way that the owner lost another costumer, or two, or three... We won't get into the fact that his accountancy won't check out, and that he will look into the CCTV footage to see that the woman stole the money, file a report and get her locked up and get the money + extra for the inconvenience.
DO NOT OVERTHINK THIS
It was there in all caps. I think you should just listen and agree that your 'superiority' isn't needed. You would simply be wrong, not because you aren't a logical thinker, but because you are too stubborn.
Let's say there is $2,000 worth of merchandise and money in the store. 2000-100=1900 (this is from the stolen $100). When the items are scanned the person owes the store $70 in order to obtain the merchandise and to "legally" obtain them pays the cashier. So before they get the change back or receive the merchandise the store then has the $100 in possession again which would be 1900+100=2000. So at this point before the person receives the items the store is even again. But then gives the $70 in merchandise which means 2000-70=1930 and then gives the person the remaining change they thing the store owes which is $30 so then you have 1930-30=1900. Then look at the difference of the total amount the store possessed before and after the theft and transactions which means 2000-1900=100
If the drawer is short 100$ then no matter how much is put into the drawer it's always short 100$. Let's say someone else bought the 70$ shirt with 100$. The drawer is still short 100$, but because the 100$ bucks was free for her she gains a net of 100$ -70$ for the shirt. Which the store is buying with its own 70$. And then pays her 30$ back. So at the end of the day she stole 130$ and a 70$ shirt
ok ok ok ok lady has x money guy steals 100 Lady : x -100 Guy : 100 guy takes 70 worth of products Lady: x -170 Guy: 170 (he hasn\t payed for it yet) guy pays for products Lady: x -70 Guy: 70 (70 worth of products, 100 is dollar bill) she give back change Lady: x -100 Guy: 100
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.