what's the correct answer?

>>736837594
E bitch, 100 in cash and 70 in goods but if you wanna be a little bitch, you gotta account for how much the goods actually cost the store to get

>>736837594
He lost 100 dollars plus 70 dollars worth of groceries

>>736837594
$100, if anyone answers anything else they are idiots

>>736837684
He got back the 100$ bill so it's more 30 in cash and 70 in goods

>>736837777
checked

>>736837684
It's $200 faggot

He gave her $30 change as well

C

>>736837684
>>736837777
She "returned" $70 you dumb niggers

No way to know, as the actual COGS (cost of goods sold) is not posted. You don't count lost retail price when doing your losses.

>>736837838
Fucking autist

>>736837594
130 in cash and 70 in goods. :)

>>736837838
For 70 dollars worth of groceries you faggot.

$130 if you count cost of goods sold at retail, but you shouldn't do that. You just count inventory cost (COGS).

>>736837849
It says 70$ "worth of goods" you fucking retard

>>736837684
$30 in cash and $70 in goods. she gave the $100 back

>>736837594
$100.

$100 is the correct answer in general.

But the overthinking answer is that the owner lost ~$70 because she got away with $30 cash and $70 goods. The $70 goods should've cost the store owner about half or a little less than half that much.

press F to pay respects

>>736837799
>>736837824
Being this actually retarded

>>736837792
there are a lot of idiots here.

>>736837799
>without the owners knowledge
It's still $100

>>736837594
Its D you fucking idiots. The lady earns 100 in the first round, the owner loses 100. In the second round, the lady gains 70 dollars worth of supply and the owner gets 70 dollars which equals out. However the owner gives 30 dollars in change. 100+30 = 130

>>736837944
Fuck, meant 100.

She stole 100, have it back and he gave her 30. So he's down 30, but also lost retail value of 70 bucks worth of product.

>>736837940
Exactly, she only got away with $70 in goods + $30 in cash, C is the correct answet

>>736837594
I'll take the advice of "DO NOT OVER THINK IT!" and just refuse to answer.

>>736838136
It's the same 100 you tard.

Steal 100
Buy 70 aka give back 70
Get 30

Person walks away with 30 of change 70 of gooda

>>736838020
What fucking product is this store selling. Most stores (not high end) don't have that kind of margin.

>>736837799
Contexturally, this is the correct answer.

1) 100$ bill is stolen = -100
2) she BUYS goods 70$ worth with the owner's bill and is given 30$ more = -200, including the price of goods and change, the bill returns to the owner = -100

lady has 100
store is now -100
lady gives 100 to store
store is now even
store gives lady 70 in goods
store is now -70
store now gives lady 30 in cash
store is now -100
now go to bed

>>736838265
idk the actual fucking margin, I'm just saying it's something to account for.
Granted I think you'd be surprised at the margin of most places.

>>736837952
That's retail price you idiot. That's not what it actually costed the store. They need profit ya know. So he only lost COGS (cost of goods sold) plus 30 change he gave her.

>>736838394
yes but the store also gets 70 dollars from selling the goods you fucking retard

>>736838655
>lady gives 100 to store

>>736838655
>lady gives 100 to store
you are the retard

>>736838655
Dee de dee

70 nigga

>>736838493
There is nothing about retail price vs actual cost of goods and it's not implied.

That is clearly overthinking the problem which it states twice to not overthink.

This is why you're fucking autistic you can't even understand the question and you proved it by posting that you can't solve it lmao.

60$

Its 100 you fucking FAGGOTS

Lady gets +100, store loses 100. Lady loses 100, store gets 100. Both earn 70 because they get equal cash and supply, but store gives 30 therefore the store loses 100.

If you thought anything other than 100 then you are a fucking loser and retard irl.

>>736838987
Fucking lost

$30 cash and $70 of product.
If you count the two together then the answer is $100.

>>736837594
Lady takes 100, store =-100, which was used to pay 100 of goods for other people. Lady comes and takes another 70 from store plus 30 change, store is down 200. Even if she "gives" back the 100, store is down 170 in goods plus 30 in cash.

the owner gains 200

100

jesus this place is more retarded than I thought
the answer is obviously C

>>736839162
Dont overthink it you faggot there is no "paying goods of other people" are you fucking shithead irl read the bottom of the fucking question it says no overthinking jesus christ FUCK you

>>736839223
Because the lady is the owner fucking genius

>>736837792
this is the right answer

But what if another customer comes on and wants to buy the thing for $70 and then store has not it? Then store looses another potential $70 because lady has taken thing?

>>736838971
It asked how much did the owner lose. They didn't lose the retail price of goods, they lost what they paid for them you fucking dipshit. This is basic concepts. Not even college. Fuck, not even high school.

The point is the question is a fun mental problem, but it says how much the owner lost and to know that you have to know inventory cost.

>>736837594
We must take into account taxes, inflation, currency, and many other factors, so from the information that I am given I can not come to a reasonable, logical conclusion based off of assumptions.

>>736839392
No they lost the $100 the rest is a legitimate business transaction where no money was lost.

>>736839392
shut the FUCK up you stupid fucking BITCH READ THE BOTTOM IT SAYS NO OVERTHINKING YOU FAGGOT FUCK YOU LOL ARE YOU RETARDED IRL?

>>736839294
>Owner steals money from his own register, she's the boss no one will question what she's doing
>Waits a bit and buys groceries from own store using the money
>Money goes back in to register so no one will think its missing
>Walks away with food and $30 cash

This may just be the crime of the century

>>736839392
Well it's obviously not A or C so it must be B

>>736839526
They didn't actually lose $70 on the $70 "worth" of goods. They lost what they paid for those goods (inventory cost or COGS).

Its semantics, but it's true.

Question insufficiently specific

Is equity lost in goods purchased considered in money lost? 2/10

>>736839392

you would be the stupid faggot that writes in this as his own answer completely disregarding the logical answer.

What if it's non profit and there is no margin? You don't know cause it doesn't say. You're still retarded.

>>736839671

Yeah, but you're not given that information you retard, it says $70 worth of goods.

>>736839538
It's not over thinking, in fact it's pretty common sense a store pays less for products than what it sells. In the idea of the question the answer is 100, but the question is flawed. It asks how much the owner LOST, which is unknowable without inventory cost.

>>736839671
No it doesn't matter the true value of the goods. The hundred dollars was stolen. The goods would be sold to someone else if not to her. The money would still of been made. The only money lost was the original $100 stolen

It's 130 because he kept 30 in change you guys are fucking autistic

>>736839816
That's the fucking point, you are not given that information. So the question wants you to answer 100, but it's actually incomplete as it doesn't give you all info.

>>736839843
Thank you for having a fucking brain

He lost the thirty and the seventy dollars worth of goods. Average retail markup is around 50%, so he lost approximately $135.00.

>>736839756
Non profits don't sell goods at cost even. Non profits that sell goods actually still take a bit of profit, but it goes back into supporting the aid the non profit supplies. No profit is ever taken out of the non profit for other needs.

Either way, it logically is a business which no business sells things at cost, even Non profits.

>>736839935
100$ was stolen right? And if you buy something with stolen money the owner is still losing the 100$ because if the thief didn't buy it someone else would have, retail doesn't matter you're trying to sound smart but look like a fucking retard rn

>>736839843
You don't equate lost opportunity of profit when reporting losses like this. You only lose what you paid for the products.

>>736837594
130 in cash
70 in goods.
Total loss of 200$
How is this difficult.

It's $30 if you don't include goods, $100 if you do

>>736840225
lmao you're retarded

>>736840225
nigga wut?

>>736840145
It doesn't matter if someone else would have bought it. You don't include the opportunity of profit as a loss. Take a basic accounting class.

>>736840225

this faggots

>>736840204
The owner is losing that stock which is worth what is listed, he's not taking it home he's selling it, you are beyond retarded

>>736837838
And the owner lost 70 dollars in goods because it wasn't really paid for, and ultimately he gave her 30 on top of it for a total of


100 dolla

>>736840225
She gave back the 100 bill.

>>736840071
This.

>>736837684
Lol this idiot.

>>736840378
Nope. Wrong still.

OK I steal a $60 game from gamestop. I take the game back in and sell it to them. They give me $3 for it. How much did gamestop lose?

>>736839935
This is like saying 1+1=2 but it could also equal 3 if you add another 1. So I don't know if the answer is 2 or 3 because the question only states what does 1+1=?

>>736840533
My respect and business

>>736840410
That's not how reporting losses works. You don't report a loss at retail value. You report it at inventory value (what the store paid for it).

Its part of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) regulation and laws.

>>736837777
Nice quads buuuut.
He returned 30 in cash to her and lost 70 in goods. He got the 100 back so that is null. The only numbers that matter are the loss in goods and the amount of money she left with in the end.

>>736837594
c) $100

>>736839671
Niggers like you will die alone

>>736837594
It'd A if we only counted the money

She steals $100, gives him $70 and gets $30 back. In the answers are no goods included, only the money. It's like stealing the goods and $30 from the register.

>>736838069
>this actually retarded
If the shoe fits.

>>736840043
If you don't go with this answer here you need to take your goddamn stupid mother fucking ass back. Cause you're really fucking dumb if you don't know and agree with this explanation.

Basic example of the law of conservation.

The orginal amount doesnt change is just recycled.

100 is ghe answer

>>736840418
Yup, as I said C is the correct option

>>736840569
No one is saying to add in other numbers. The owner only lost what he paid for the products you idiot. It's spelled out in GAAP laws (accounting regulations)

Your analogy doesn't work.

>>736840225

incorrect.

Stole $100 cash
Bought $70 in goods with stole cash
got $30 back back

total loss is $100 cash

goods are paid for with stolen money doesn't count against inventory. 30 back on a hundred is simply change. Net loss is only the $100 cash stolen

>>736837594
$100

Looses $100 bill
Gives $70 worth of product
Gives $30 cash
Receives $100 bill from lady

>>736840667
Yet the goods were given a value of currency. Nice try tho.

>>736837594
Everything after "steals $100 bill" is unnecessary info.
c)$100

>>736839075
Wrongo

>>736840652
We all die alone technically.......

>>736837594
$100 because the register is now down $100. When she leaves and then comes back, she may as well be a new customer. The store sells her $70 worth of goods which she pays for with a $100 bill so she gets change. Fine. The register is still down $100 though. That's how the numbers will play out. Ethically, she robbed the store twice though.

>>736840915
yes, this. $100 net loss

>>736840071
Mapped it out for you fucking retards now do you understand?

>>736840940
but especially you.

>>736840348
It's not an opportunity you dumb cunt the 70$ stock in the store was lost that's what the question states, if you can read the question and have a brain you would understand

>>736841268
this is perfect, if you still dont get it then you are a retard and waste to society

>>736840292
No u
>>736840299
Check muh maths
>>736840421
Yes but since the bill was.... ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>>736840292
I get it!
>>736840299
Check muh maths
>>736840378
No. You're a Loser
>>736840421
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>>736840791
Ooooooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!

>>736840770
No fuck u Sandwich is the correct option.

>>736840633
>here let me spread this autism all over.

>>736840785
You're saying what the owner paid is different from the 70$ given. Clearly meaning you are attempting to add other numbers not shown in the equation. But because you don't "know" the value therefore you cannot answer the question.

The analogy works. Your brain doesn't.

It's a simple equation but you're trying to complicate it and justify why it should be complicated.

I bet if a girl walked up to you and asked you out you would say no because she didn't specify an exact location and the amount of anxiety from the "unknown" caused your fickle brain to shutdown and full retard impulses to kick in.

>>736837594
Owner lost 100 bill+70 worth of goods+30 in charge

Total $200

If you didnt find the question your a dumb nigger

t. Phd in Math

How many times does this shitty thread have to be started before people realise how fucking shite it is and stop responding to it and all arguing like confused spastics?

File: download.png (8KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x218px

>>736841896

>>736841494
The 70 was retail cost you idiot. That's what the lady paid for it. You don't lose retail, you lose what you paid for it.

loses 100
buys 70 dollars of goods
gives 30$ in change so he loses 30
so -100 +70 -30
=-60 he lost 60 why are u ppl so dumb

>>736841935
It gave me some quality laughs because even if some people are trolling I know some are just full blown retards.

I was counting and rolling all my coins once saved over many years. I had about 600 pennies. My gf said to me "600 pennies is like 20$ right?".

Still crack on her about it all the time. Shit is hilarious.

>>736841896
He gets the $100 bill back.
>If you didnt find the question your a dumb nigger
^^^ This makes no sence, also- *you're*
>t. Phd in Math
^^^ You should really just stop... stop EVERYTHING.

Don't try and pretend that you were trolling.

>>736841796
It asked what the owner lost. He didn't lose retail cost of product. That doesn't add anything in, it's just simple business practices. I really hope you're not an adult (and I assume with all the girl gimme,rd you are not) because it's sad if you are.

Technically, he lost $340.

When you REALLY think about it

>>736842347
Ahhh... You're right my friend, I'm just pissed off at /b/
The $20 thing is fucking funny. Tell her that the internet is laughing at her!

>>736842478
If he didn't lose retail it would of been specified in the question. Please stop already.

>>736841896
Sorry son, you retarded.

He also got back the $100 bill, so he lost a net of $100.

"without the owner's knowledge", because he was out at her car, stealing $100.

The owner lost nothing

File: 1495049282211-co.jpg (76KB, 382x394px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 382x394px

All of you are fucking retarded, the only correct answer here it's 0, he didn't lost anything because he doesn't exist

>>736842816
Ahh trick question. The correct answer is the owner is a nigger and the lady was just taking her own money back but because she is white she felt guilty even though it was her own money so she bought some groceries.

Well done.

>>736843004
Exactly, good sir

>$130

She stole $100 from his register and bought $70 worth of goods (using the store's own money) plus got $30 in change.

Owner lost about 90$ after tax and sales reduction.

>>736843820
>t. b2

>>736843820

Inventory doesn't factor in as an addition here.

He bought the inventory, sold the inventory. It's a wash there.

$100 + $30

>don't overthink it
y'all are retarded as shit
$100

>>736837594
Is this a troll thread? everyone has to know the answer is C. right? I mean there can't be this many retards here can there?

>>736844118
Atheist then explain the 30$ payback she gets from the owner, if god doesn't exist and your mother shouldn't die in her sleep tonight..

>>736839822

Yes you retard, but the owner would think he made 100 minus the original cost, not lost only what the goods originally cost him, so for future investments he/she would assume they got $100-their initial investment.

He lost the 100$
Then 70$
Then 30$
Losses 200$

>>736844972
But then he lost $60 after that, when she returned the faulty goods?

Net gain of $40.

>>736844972
>>736845068
Is it bait or is it retards (or were le master trollers merely pretending), we will never know.

>>736840225
yup. I too arrived at this conclusion. Dont know wtf is the correct answer tho.

lose 100$ to stealing
receive 100$, give out 30$ plus 70$ groceries. so 30$ loss plus 70$ goods lost.

total 200$ loss.

wait a min, since I got 100$ back, maybe its 100$ total loss ..? wtf?

>>736844972
>He lost the 100$
>Then 70$
>Then 30$
>Losses 200$

You forgot that she gave the $100 back to buy the goods.

Loss is $100

>>736837594
F

File: 7cb33495869015be881fd931b8208776.jpg (76KB, 636x900px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 636x900px

>>736837594
You guys are so stupid. She steals $100 and effectively exchanges that $100 for $70 worth goods. The owner then gives her $30 back. So she now has $70 in goods, and $30 cash. Meaning she still only has $100.. Stupid shits.

>>736846102
>I didn't read the thread
>The post
Anon, at least invest 5 minutes to read a thread if you join in.