[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

Ok faggots lets see who belongs here and who doesnt

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

Thread replies: 136
Thread images: 23

Ok faggots lets see who belongs here and who doesnt
>>
$100.
This is stupid.
>>
>>718846389
Question is too vague...your teacher needs some remedial education if this is his/her idea of "critical thinking".
>>
$30
>>
>>718846567
what if the owner marks his goods up
>>
Is it E?
>>
170 and you are the faggot
>>
He made 110+, your all stupid
>>
Only anon1 is right you fucking retards
>>
>>718846389
He loses 100 that she stole, 70 worth of items and 30 that he gave back to her, so 200
>>
>>718846389
-100
+profits made off of $70 goods
-cost of $70 goods
The change already cancels out.
>>
130
>>
File: 1413484504042.jpg (78KB, 400x388px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1413484504042.jpg
78KB, 400x388px
>>718847338
>>
>>718847338
She pays with the stolen bill, so subtract that, you dimwit, he loses 30 cash and 70 worth of items, so 100
>>
the question operates under the false assumption that the goods the shop owner buys, are worth what he sells them for.

Chances are the goods she bought cost the shop owner roughly half of what she paid for, with his own cash.

A rough estimate would be closer to 100-(70/2)= 65.

I'm guessing the dumb bitch that wrote this question never owned or worked in a shop that sold goods.
>>
File: 1484017808577.jpg (31KB, 477x185px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1484017808577.jpg
31KB, 477x185px
>>718847817
>>
>>718847762
No, he gets 100 from his insurance company for her theft and then earns 10 for the goodies, he bough for 60 and is selling for 70. Try to project math into real life, retard
>>
>>718847338
>>718847360
Did you faggot even pass grade school?
you use BEDMAS:

>70+100*0.3
>=70+30
>=100

I swear I'm surrounded by idiots sometimes
>>
>>718848007
Talk about obvious bait and overthinking
>>
>>718847880
My autism is already maxed out bro.
>>
>>718846389
he doesn't lose anything because he shoots that nigger lady in the head and gets his money back
>>
5 bucks
>>
>>718848245
Hah, niggers don't buy shop items with money. If this was a nigger, that money would be going for crack.
>>
>>718848245
She dindu nuffin
>>
File: StxEo4e.png (11KB, 162x161px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
StxEo4e.png
11KB, 162x161px
>>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.
>>
>>718848338
damn u got me
>>
>>718848182
say 30% gp,
70*1.3 = 97 aka 27 profit
100 - 27 = 73
loss would be $73.
>>
-100
+100
-70
-30

they just lose the 100 u fuqs
>>
>>718848589
im retarded, its 21
still $79 loss
>>
>>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
>>
>>718848703
Also the answer is 100. Basic accounting
>>
>>718848722
*less
>>
You can't lose what you never realized you lost.
>>
>>718848697
>Not calculating sales tax
>>
>>718848182
Where are you pulling the 0.3 from, besides your ass?
>>
>>718846389
The answer according to simple math is 100. But the real answer is the store owner lost what he paid to bring in the stock the theif purchased, plus the 30 cash he gave her.
>>
The question is vague, I think its asking the monetary value the owner lost,he lost $200 worth of cash total
>>
>>718849171
If you're going on how much cash left the drawer it's 130
>>
>>718849171
no
>>
>>718849085
Case fucking closed, anyone who disagrees should be gunned down to not pollute the gene pool.
>>
>>718848722
Basically correct. But the store lost the COST of $70 worth of goods + $30. It's less than $100, how much is dependent on profit margin.
>>
>>718849224
Correct, but I think its asking for cash value lost.
>>
>>718846389
C
>>
>>718848907
Taxes
>>
>>718849343
Then it's 100 because if a regular customer.walked in a paid with an unspoken 100 no money would be lost.
>>
>>718849343
Then it is 100
200 is only reached if the questionwas, how much money changed hands
>>
>>718846389
But -100stolen +100 same bill = 0
-70 goods -30 change =-100
>>
>>718849422
Who the fuck pays 30% in sales tax? I'd say Europe but they already include the tax in the price tag.
>>
47 Euros.
>>
>>718846389
$30 in cash and the groceries, which are $70 in value.
>>
>>718847762
You fucking idiot in court she would still be guilty of stealing the $100 even though she gave it back
>>
>>718849643
Uhm, if you sell mostly to companies, you have to calculate taxes separately here. And give them to your tax company afterwards
>>
>>718846389
i cant help but notice how poorly that question is written. am i overthinking it?
>>
She stole $100 - so 100
She bought 70 with the stolen money, so add 70
Then the owner who was snookered and didnt realize she was stealing (probably a nigger) gave her 30 in cash, so add 30 for 200 total
>>
File: 1483825964687.jpg (60KB, 640x640px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1483825964687.jpg
60KB, 640x640px
the answer is 0 ERO you are not "out" something you gave away, he fucking handed her 100$ worth of stuff and money vut he handed it her so she didn't steal anything
>>
File: GUYS.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
GUYS.jpg
52KB, 1280x720px
Lets say the owner had 130$ to give her change ok

-So, Store has 130$
-*Lady take 100$*
-Store has 30$

-The lady buys 70$ worth of goods with an 100$ bill so...

-*Lady gives back 100$ expecting 30$ change*
-Store has 130$
-*Hands the lady 30$ in change*
-Store has 100$

Subtract the store start total with end total
130-100

Store lost 30$
>>
>>718849857
I'm not sure if you're understanding my point that some anon just pulled .3 out of his ass.
>>
>>718846389
-100
-70
+100
-30

so loss is $100.
>>
>>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 $100.00.
>>
>>718846389
>lets see who belongs here and who doesnt
protip: if you spent any time thinking about the answer you don't belong here
go back to facebook
>>
If he is selling at cost as the question implies, his business is in serious trouble and losing 100$ 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.
>>
>>718850387
You forgot the $70 worth of products...
>>
>>718850443
Your question was also, if europe calculated taxes differently. And yes we do for company owners

Idgaf about your little dispute with initial anon
>>
>>718846389
lost $100, put the $100 back = $ 0.00
lost a $70 item and $30 cash =$100.00
>>
>>718846389
30 dollars cash and 70 dollars in product
>>
>>718850962
This guy understands how the world works... Op you could learn something you faggot.
>>
Fucking forget all the sales tax

Were in Alaska

Stupid nigger works store selling fishing rods and bait right

Nigger has lets say 130$

Lady takes 100$

Nigger has 30$

Lady gives nigger 100$ to buy 70$ worth of shit
Nigger has 130$ now

Nigger gives her 30$

Lady has 30$ and 70$ worth of goods

Nigger has 100$

So she didnt steal the niggers goods and the money dumbfucks because she swapped 70$ for 70$ of goods so she always stole 100$ but changed its fucking form.

>but the end total is now 200$

Because 70$ worth of goods was added on to the equation so original 130$ plus 70$ of goods
>>
>>718851129
lmfao you're a dumbass
>>
File: maths.jpg (71KB, 482x323px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
maths.jpg
71KB, 482x323px
>>718847338
Are you black?
>>
>>718851925
elaborate
Are you a business owner in europe?
>>
>>718846389
tbqh i guessed 200. do i have a shot at life? or should i live stream my suicide?
>>
>>718846389
Assume the store has a $100 bill, a $20 bill, a $10 bill, and a $70 weightloss drug starter pack

Now the woman steals the $100 bill
>woman: $100
>store: $20, $10, $70 weight drug

Now the woman comes back and gets the weight loss drug
>woman: $100, $70 drug
>store: $20, $10

She gives the store back the hundred
>woman: $70drug
>store: $100, $20, $10

Cashier gives back $30 in change
>woman: $20, $10, $70 drug
>store: $100

The store lost the $20, the $10, and the $70 fat pills but kept the hundred dollars
>>
File: angryhobo1.png (58KB, 183x184px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
angryhobo1.png
58KB, 183x184px
>>718846389
>>718849269
>>718849274
>>718849276
>>718849343
>>718849419
>>718849422
>>718849430
>>718849454
>>718849592
>>718849643
>>718849682
>>718849708
>>718849800
>>718849857
>>718850133
>>718850203
>>718850369
>>718851958
>>718851925
>>718851836
>>718851517
>>718851466
>>718851333
>>718851129
>>718851045
>>718850962
>>718850931
>>718850745
>You're all fucking retarded.
The man loses a little under $100
He lost $100 - X
Where X = 70 - what he paid for the item she bought.
>fucking retards you don't really think he bought that shit for $70 and is reselling it for the same. You're all gayer than a barrel of dicks
kill yourselves
>>
>>718852404
>>
>>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
Implying I don't know that...
>>
File: 1456452561256-b.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1456452561256-b.jpg
19KB, 480x360px
>>718852297
Fuck yea

>>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)
>>
File: well.png (83KB, 921x611px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
well.png
83KB, 921x611px
>>718852404
Thanks for all the (You) s
>>
File: 1440297864623.gif (1024KB, 227x158px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1440297864623.gif
1024KB, 227x158px
>>718852860
don't tell me what to do you uneducated queer. go back to school
>>
File: hehe.gif (2MB, 350x250px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hehe.gif
2MB, 350x250px
>>718852404
shutup faggot
>>
>>718852404
The same logic goes if the item sold was a loss leader.
So the the man loses more than 100$ now you retard.
>>
>>718852404
Even if he buys the item for 20cents from Indonesia, and is selling it for $1,000 to yuppies in Hoboken, NJ. The value of the item she is charged with stealing is still $1,000, not $.20.
>>
File: 1440298481038.gif (885KB, 300x225px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1440298481038.gif
885KB, 300x225px
>>718853058
lol'd
>>
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.

>tl;dr $100
>>
>>718846389
hey op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aekiMlGQDLY
>>
>>718853103
>didnt even actually tell you to do anything just asked a fucking a question
>>
File: 007.jpg (20KB, 388x300px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
007.jpg
20KB, 388x300px
>>718853259
that means she stole $1,000 in merchandise but he still only lost $0.20 fucktard
>>
>>718846776
No way to know. What if he marks them down? regardless. you can only work with known information all else must be assumption.
>>
File: 2017-01-13_21-29-09.png (334KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
2017-01-13_21-29-09.png
334KB, 1920x1080px
LOOK DAD IM TROLLING
>>
I think the main argument ITT is trying to define what the owner lost in terms of what he payed, or lost in terms of the value of the item
>>
>>718846389
>DO NOT OVER THINK IT
Go fuck yourself

STORE LADY
cash / goods cash/goods
$1000 / 2000 $0 / 0
$900 / 2000 $100 / 0
$970 / 1930 $ 30 / 70

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.
>>
>>718853394
No. He lost $.20 in merchandise expense and $999.80 in profit. Which no matter how much you want to deny it, is still a legal loss.

I run a drug store, trust me. Ive appeared enough times in court to theft hearings to know.

Never once have they asked me what my expense was, they only ask the valuue of the merchandise.

My chain charges $30 for security video retrieval, and a flat $200 in related expenses to the case, and $30/hr of trial related time if it gets to that, which it often does.

So they might steal $200 in drugs, but they get a court order to repay $500 or more
>>
You guys are fags.
It does not matter that the same woman came back.
It dies not matter if it was the "same" $100.
He's out $100. End of story.
>>
>>718853997
That is why the question states that you should not overthink it.

Just answering in a normal way would be saying $100

Answering in an overthought way would be saying "Somewhere just under $100, but we can't be sure HUR HUR HUR"
>>
15$the fucking answer is 15$
>>
>>718854366
Okay see preach it because i agree yes he would not sell it for what he bought it BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE IT SAYS

DONT OVERTHINK IT
>>
>>718854416
bitch 25$

PEMDAS NIGGA
>>
>>718846389
the awnser is 0 hes insured against robbery and we all are all witnessess that that crank hoe stole
>>
>>718854416
The answer is subliminal marketing
>>
File: SI4Tv.jpg (126KB, 1101x762px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
SI4Tv.jpg
126KB, 1101x762px
>>718854416
70
>>
so many niggers that think it is OK to steal from a store as long as you spend the stolen money at the store you stole it from
>>
>>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

If it does, you're a fucking idiot.
>>
File: 1484361609859.2.png (1MB, 960x960px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1484361609859.2.png
1MB, 960x960px
>>718854416
>>
>>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.
>>
File: 1478478911426s.jpg (2KB, 125x92px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1478478911426s.jpg
2KB, 125x92px
>>718855094
Fucking idiot
It's 70 you retarded fuck!!!
>>
>>718855094
5 plus 2 TIMES 10, not 5 plus 2 plus 10
>>
>>718855311
10 times 1 plus 5 you cock gobbler
>>
>>718846776
Then he still lost $70 worth of marked up goods.
>>
>>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.

They are seperate transactions.
>>
>>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.
>>
File: 307.jpg (37KB, 242x242px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
307.jpg
37KB, 242x242px
>>
>>718855094

Fucking dumb ass

5+2X10
5+(2x10)
5+20
25
>>
>>718855459
>>718855311
oh shit im retarded
>>
>>718846389
$100-his markup so if her $70 in goods had $20 in markup he lost 80, but for the details of the question, he lost $100
>>
>>718855567
lo quality bait, nobody is really stupid enough to say a honest claim of 25
>>
>>718852404
Are the balls still attached to the dicks in said barrel? Because if not, it's not gay.
>>
>>718855695


5+2X10
5+(2x10)
5+20
25

This is the right answer, remember priority of operations
>>
Anyone who did not answer 100 should be killed right on the spot so they can't reproduce.
>>
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
>>
>>718855826
how the fuck do you get the same value of 2 for two different images of fries? one image of one order, the other a image with a double order, how can x and 2x be the same value?
>>
>>718855567
>>718855826

>>718856311 - Jesus fucking shit i'm dumb... thanks for pointing out

Answer is 15 then...
>>
>>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.
>>
>>718852404
You fucking nigger. How is this
>>718849276
Any different than what you just said?
>>
File: thunkdeep.png (549KB, 1162x872px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
thunkdeep.png
549KB, 1162x872px
>>718846389
The owner lost his dignity. Overall, justice was lost.
>>
30 bucks because thats what he gives back
>>
The cash till will be short $130
>>
plus the stolen merchandise equals 200
>>
>>718846389
D
>>
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

Tl:Dr the store lost $100 dumb fucks
>>
If the drawer is short 100$ 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
>>
About

tree fiddy
or
>>
>>718846567
assfuck

the owner lost 100 as the bitch stole from him, and then another 70 bucks in goods as the bitch paid him with his own money. so, the asshole owner lost 100 in cash + 70 in stuff.
total: 170.
>>
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

Cashier lost 100 dollars.
>>
They store paid her 30$ for taking money and a shirt.
>>
$100
Starts off with -100
Goes to -170 before she pays
Goes to -70 when she hands over 100
Goes to -100 when cashier give 30 in change
Thread posts: 136
Thread images: 23



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
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.