/biz/ - Business & Finance

200

>>8383630
100

>>8383630
170$¿

>>8383630

its 200.

He was robbed of 100
total: -100
70 worth groceries
total: -170
30 dollars back
total: -200

Thanks just bought 100K

100 dollar obviously

all his dignity

>>8383630
It depends on what margins the store has on the product she bought

How retarded are you its 100 dollars they even fucking say how much is stolen

>>8383670
Yep 170$
100$ stolen and then additionally 7¤$
The change she is getting back is from the 100$ being split for change

>>8383630

$170. The lady stole $100 and $70 worth of product. The $30 was already calculated in the initial $100.

>>8383630
$170

$70 + $100 - $30 = $140

>>8383630
1000 eoy

>>8383703
>>8383670
Wtf is going on with my keyboard ayy lmao
>>8383709
>>8383707
This
The rest ITT should leave crypto forever

>>8383690
No it’s $100 brainlet.

>>8383655
This

>it’s another /biz/ is retarded episode

30 and the value of the groceries (if it's the owner it didnt cost him 70 or he wouldnt be selling it for 70)

-100
-70
+100
-30
= -100

>>8383696

so the correct answer would be 70

>>8383630
E. 170. She took 100 from the register and bought $70 worth of stuff with his own money. The $30 part is meant to trick you up; that's just change she already stole.

>>8383707
she didn't stole 70$ worth of product you moron. she paid for it.
if she paid for it with the money she stole doesn't matter at all.
she only stole 100 dollars, not more. so the owner only lost 100$. holy shit anons how dense are you

>>8383630
170
Bill + groceries = 170

>>8383630
$100.

She walks away with $100 worth of items/cash. If you come to any other conclusion, off yourself.

>>8383734

loll are you crazy?

-100 - 70 + 100 - 30 = 170?
go back on plebbit

the right answer is 70 because he had margin on the products

It's $100 you dumb cunt farts.. The Original 100 was his he gets that back then gives $30 cash + $70 in groceries

She stole 100.
Gave 100 back.
Walked away with 70+30.
$100

No wonder you guys suck at trading

>>8383771
This

Mongloids here

Listen here you fucking basement cunts. DONT OVER THINK THIS.

$100 because in the end the lady ends up with $70 worth of goods and $30. The shop keeper is down $100.

I refuse to believe my brothers are this stupid.

>woman takes $100
>woman gives back $100
>woman gets $70 in food and $30 in change
>therefore, woman stole $100

>>8383630

>$100 in cash
>switches $70 in cash to $70 in groceries

The owner lost $30 in cash and $70 in groceries.

Now we can get autistic about $70 in groceries not equaling to $70 in cash but I'm just gonna go ahead and lock answer C.

>>8383787
The irony is that the presence of this sentence causes them to overthink it.

>>8383630
This thread is proof that if you let /biz/ give you any advice on crypto and buy the 'hot stuff' like banyan network, jibrel or chainlink as /biz/ recommends you to do, you can only blame your self in the end for staying poor, jhaha.

>>8383791
this
I cannot tell if the rest of you faggots are sarcastic or are we flooded by brainlets

For my own peace of mind I'm going to assume that anyone not answering $100 (with a possible reduction for the profit margin on the groceries) is LARPing. I honestly cannot believe the rest of you are that stupid. Ad I do mean 'cannot'. I literally cannot maintain a view of the world as a rational place if I accept that you are being serious.

1. Lady steals 100:

Owner = - 100
Lady = + 100

2. Lady hands back 100 note to acquire goodw

Owner = 0
Lady = 0

3. Owner hands over goods + change

Owner = - 70 - 30 = - 100
Lady = +70 + 30 = +100

Owner lost $100

>>8383720
My bad it's 100
Took 100
Give back for 70 + 30

>>8383696
Only correct answer in this thread.

THIS FUCKING THREAD HAHAHAHA

IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK ITS $170 WHY ARE YOU HERE

>>8383845
>>8383823

Good point about actual losses on the groceries due to mark-up, but let's not get too autistic here

-100 +100 -70 -30 =100

>>8383845
I think most are larping too

nvm she only stole the 100$ bill, since she otherwise paid for the food.

>>8383690

lmfao, great post

>>8383730
litraly this, you can also think of it by changing up the order ie: she takes 100$ she then gives back 70$ (in the form of a sale) and gets 70$ worth of goods (That she keeps) making the total look like this
-100(theft)
+100(sale)
-70(the goods lost)
-30(the change returned)
=
-100

The money that a thief has at the start of the transaction is 0$

for simplicity (without loss of generality (wlog))

Then we assume the amount of money that cashier has at the start plus stock is 100$+70$=170$

Now here comes to tricky bit we have the thief stealing some money, 100$

to be precise, then we now have

170$−100$=70$

Now we say that the thief buys 70$

worth of food, this is a zero sum transaction i.e. the transaction is balanced both ways so we have

70$−70$(food sold)+70$(money used to purchase food)=70$

Now that is what we have in left with the cashier.

Now compare with the start

70$−170$=−100$

Is what the cashier is down by.

Now the thief has

70$(food)+$30(change)=$100

Effectively $100

.

So this matches what the cashier is down by.

>>8383765
He also lost the margin he could make selling the goods to someone else you dumb fuck
And nothing tells you that there is a 30$ margin on those products

>>8383787
Dont' tell me what to do

>>8383630
$170

It's 30.

She paid $70 and he gave her $30. He only ended up losing $30 out of the register and not $100. You all are stupid.

>>8383630
LINK 1000 EOY

why is everybody here so braindead

>>8384074
Dude....the stolen goods she took are worth $70, so $70+$30=$100 lmao.

>>8384074
he lost goods worth 70$, it’s 100$ you brainlet

>>8383690

You counted the $30 twice, the owner lost a total of $170

Its $100.

she stole 100,
basically traded the 100 for 70 worth of food and the 30 in change from the 100 she used.

store lost $100.

/end thread.

>>8383630

100$

So say you have 200 in cash and 200 with of product. 100 is taken from cash. Then 70 worth of food. But you gain the 100 back but loose 30 in change. So you loose 100

>>8383630
SHE STOLE 100
NOTHING MORE
NOTHING LESS

>>8383787
>Listen here you fucking basement cunts. DONT OVER THINK THIS.
Seriously there is ZERO MATH involved. What the fuck is wrong with you people

you guys are fucking retarded its $100

when she buys $70 worth of groceries she exchanges $70 she stole for $70 worth of groceries.

the clerk receives the $70 she stole BACK

female steals 100$ from cler
F +100, C - 100
female buys 70$ worth of shit with 100$ bill
F -$100, + 70$, C +$70, - 70$
clerk gives back 30$ change
F +30, C - 30

F = + 100 - 100 + 70 + 30 = +100
C = - 100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = -100

>>8383690

>>everyone
M8, why are you giving answer to a fucking stupid ape whom cant think for itself?
Even wost, nobody post his address to beg for coin, or post (really) shitty bulshit to turn him(or her, don't be sexist anon) down!

Plus, the real ans34 is 100/(70-30)=$25

Leave my board freaking normies !

she stole $100. Then gave back $70 of those dollars in exchange for $70 worth of food.

so she essentially stole $30 + $70 worth of food -= $100

>>8383630
Well it depends on the worth of goods he was selling.. and the price he bought it for and what he sold it for.

>>8383630
It depends on the profit the store made on the products

Its not more then $100, but probably a bit less

dumb ass company tell them you resign

Steals $100. +100$
Buys $70 worth of goods, gives $100 to owner. -$30
Owners gives her back $30. +$30

100-30+30 = 100.

It's a trick question. We don't know if she used the 100 she stole or her own 100 to buy the goods so you can't get the answer.

No wonder link gets unironically shilled on this board, y'all are retarded

>>8383662
this

Jesus fucking christ biz... OK again for retards: IMAGINE SHE DIDN'T STEAL THE $ 100.. Walks into the shop, buys her groceries, pays with her own money. How much did the shop owner lose? EXACTLY.

>>8383630
100

>>8383630
-$100

>>8384354
It literally doesn't matter because she only stole a $100 bill, which, guess what, is worth fucking $100. You recognize the answer is $100 yet you can't even understand there's nothing more to it, you probably copied what everybody's been seeing in this thread for a while and I bet you didn't even get the answer right the first time before skimming through it.
Kill yourself, brainlet.

>>8383662
>>8383693
>>8383718
>>8383756
Technically it's probably less than $100 since he will be making a profit from the sale. The goods he sold are worth less to him than the $70 he got back.

You literally don't even have to consider the transaction.
She stole $100, that is where it ends. It doesn't matter where the money for the transaction came from as long as it was executed correctly.

>>8384465
This is the first correct answer in this thread. Well done anon.

Was the owner a pajeet? If so well done lady

>>8384452
Imagine a different scenario where the lady pays for $100 worth of groceries with false money

Did the company lose $100 or only the value of the groceries

Check mate dipshit

>>8384505
True but grocery store margins are incredibly thin. It would be like .70 less lossaybe if you consider margins

>>8383983
No it doesn't matter who he sold it to

>>8383696
You cannot count the margin in favor of the thief because that margin was already calculated into the selling price. If I buy $10 of goods, mark it up to $20, then have to throw the goods in the garbage, I'm not out $10, I'm out $20 fucking dollars.

wow watch at those stinky linkies who think she stole 100+ bucks

>>8383630
Just say 100$, he specifically said don't overthink it, try to follow instructions and don't listen to autists on here geeez....

>>8384465
>>8384494
DO NOT OVERTHINK IT!!!

>>8383630
$230

>>8383630
100 $ is what she stole, so 100$ is what is lost.

the lady came out with
70$ worth of goods and 30$ in change

so 100$

seriously how fucking retarded are you brainlets

>>8383630
Bout tree fitty

the funniest shit is that it literally says

do not over think it

DO NOT OVER THINK IT

wannabe smartassL "hurr durr but muh margins"

this is why you retards dont deserve a job and buy high and sell low

>>8384886
>Not calculating margins and clearly showing critical thinking is not your thing

/biz/

>>8383630
30

holy shit every body is a brainlet here lol
owner starts at 0 losses
then -100 because she stole
then when she pays for the item she gives 100 so they cancel out
then he gives her 30 so it's -30
fucking brainlets

>>8383845
Average IQ bruv reporting in. Life is an MMO and we don't all get high level INT okay?

>>8385039
inb4
>you need to include the price of the item as a loss too
no. the owner already lost on that item when he bought it from the manufacturer. we don't know how much he paid but we can assume it's less than 70. he can't lose that amount "again" because it was stolen.

>>8384189

how did he lose 170 if the chick gave him the 100 back and bought 70 and got 30 change back? That seems to be 100 not 170

>>8383696
if its more than 25x theyre a gambling degnerate and need to get off bitmex

>>8385137
They even tell you to not overthink

hhahahaha can't believe I BTFO all of you. literally the only right answer here is me.

-100
-70
-30
+100
▬
-100

>>8385238
brainlet

>>8385205
get back to /b/ with your pathetic attempt at trolling lmao

>>8384074
actually you got it right!

>>8384160
nope. see >>8385137

>>8384465
Yep. We also aren’t considering deductions cuz theft

>>8385283
>trolling
I'm am a genius in a sea of retards here, you didn't even have an answer and literally overthought the problem when it clearly says you shouldn't... because it's piss easy. yet you still failed. hahahhahaa fucking brainlet

>>8384682
>If I have buy something for $10 and try to sell it for $20 but fail then I'm out $20, not $10
Nope, $10.

>>8383630

It says don't think too hard. Guessing $100 then.

are you guys retarded it's not that fucking hard

>Gets $100 bill
store: -100
>Gets $70 of groceries
store: -70
total: -170
>Gets $30
store: -30
total: -200
The answer is F. $200

>>8383630
Clearly, you're all retarded. But I think I see how some of you drooling morons might be misinterpreting this. "How much did the owner lose" means how much was stolen, not how much money did they physically hand over. The question was obviously written by someone none too bright to begin with (see: overuse of capitals and question marks), so they probably didn't realise the ambiguity they were introducing.

>>8385498
>retard calling other retard

i've never seen that before
who has the 100$ bill in the end? the store or the thief??

brainlet

business major here

what you math nerds are missing is that it says "how much did the owner lose"
he loses: $100, $70 worth of goods, and $30 in change

that, my friends, is $200 lost
so the answer is F

Only $100, brainlets.

It doesn't matter that she is using $100 that she stole, actually just think of the new purchase as if she's using a different $100 bill that she already had in her wallet and buying goods legitimately.

>>8385672
this thread is full of mutt's i see... it's the owner who gets the 100$ in the end. It's not that hard.
your degree should be revoked desu

>>8385609
the question clearly asks for "how much did the owner lose????"
Never did it ask about how much the owner gained.
In total all the owner's negative/losing transactions sum up to -100-70-30 = -200

?

-$100
If your struggling to get to this think of it as what has the thief gained, not what the shop has lost. The thief now has $30 + $70 of shopping.

>>8385672
Finally someone who isn't retarded

OP if you want this job you need to choose F. Ignore all the brainlets in this thread.

>>8385672
>hurr he lost $200
If you read the sequence of events carefully, you see that physically his register parts with ONLY $30 after the scene is over

The closest answer is 70$, since he lost $100 initially but got some margin back with the purchase

>>8385754
stop trolling

>>8385672
he gets the $100 back you moron.

he's out $70 worth of goods and $30 cash, $100 total. if she "paid" she didn't take $100 twice, good lordy people...

>>8385792
no. you can't count the $70 as a loss since he is already in loss after he bought it from the manufacturer or whatever. how can you lose twice the amount on something after you bought it once?

The net loss of cash in the register is $30, so that is the answer.

>>8385824
what if he made the goods himself from the grass on his land then, how can you assume he made a loss on that and that he bought it in the first place?? Clearly that falls into the category of overthinking it which is explicity stated not to do.

>>8385824
Question says not to overthink it.

>>8385871
no, it's not because he's also missing groceries worth 70 bucks, bought with money that was stolen out of the cashier before

AND THERE ARE PEOPLE TAKING INVESTMENT ADVICE FROM /BIZ/ AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA

>>8385672

how does he lose 200$ if the original $100 BILL (paper money) was used to BUY 70$ food and get $30 BACK.

The owner got the $100 back and gave the chick 70$ free of groceries and 30$ free change. Thus, it's 100$ not 200$ that was lost

>>8385896
That's what they WANT you to think!!

$12

Man you guys a seriously fucking retarted.
-100 from theft.
Buys 70 dollars worth with the hundred initially stolen. So the store gets back 70 of the hundred that was stolen.
Then it was 70 dollars worth of goods exchanged for the stolen 100. Means the store is out a total of 100 dollars.

The cash will still be -100 dollars after the count is done at the end of the day.

This is not the first time I've seen this stupid post.
It's pretty good bait because it makes all you retards come out of the wood work and act all big thinking they know how maths works.

Your all dumb. The till is 100 dollars short and the store is out 100 dollars. Yeesus fucking rice

>>8385890
actually you are the one overthinking. if you just followed the money and did simple math you'd see he only lost $30
>what if he made the goods himself from the grass on his land then
overthinking much?

>>8383630
It's a bait question. All the answers in the quiz are wrong

>>8384465

Well yeah, but that's not a listed answer. The correct listed answer is $100.

>>8386037
That's the stupidest reasoning I've seen so far, you are beyond retarded.

>>8385922
>groceries worth 70 bucks

>>8384465
also he could've invested the $100 in bitcoin in the meantime and lost $2 from that

60 links bruh

>>8383630
-100 - whatever the goods cost him end of story.

THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF BIZ

$130

because he get's back $70 of the stolen $100

Holy fuck is this a legit brainlet thread?

>>8386333
is it
>How many balls can you see
or
>How many balls assuming the same packing
or
>How many balls do you have

>>8386401

>>8386333
16 or 30

>>8386421
but that's 16 men

>>8386453
no it's not

>>8386052
you fucking moron i said that as an example why you can't assume he made a loss buying it. You are the one making decisions under false assumptions.... its clearly $100

>>8383630
100, the thief just transacted $70 of the stolen money into goods, and kept 30 of the stolen money.

The amount didn't change just the form of what he stole.

>>8386453
Mate

>>8383630

200. The cash as well as the cost of the products.

>>8386333
20

>>8386333
Is that a square pyramid or a triangular pyramid? Is it asking how many are visible or the implied total pyramid? Is the pyramid hollow or supported by some non-ball internal structure? I hate shit like this, particularly with the clickbait subtitle.

>>8386528
the owner didn't lose more than 100 brainlet. The thief just changed the 70 dollars from currency into goods.

$100

This thread should be proof enough that /biz/ is not a place to seek any sort of advice, especially financial.

>>8386579
Are they even balls or other round things? Probably the answer is 'zero'!

>>8386590

70 of the currency she stole from them. Which means they lost not only the cash, but the merchandise as well. Merch is money.

>>8386614
They received the cash back after he transacted. Please don't offer advice to anyone that involves financials

>>8385672
find another major.

>>8383630
He didn't 'lose' anything. It was stolen.

But then, any question that ends with more than one question mark isn't worth thinking about anyway.

$70 worth of goods, but the shop owner makes profit on those goods.

So the shop owner bought those goods for much less.

So in actual value terms, he gave away $30 and good whose value is less that $70 to the owner. Not making a profit is not the same as making a loss.

Therefore I would say the answer is roughly $70, so B

>>8386629

And it's still a complete fuckin loss. As for advice, I'm the one with 6 figures in the bank at 23. Be nice and I might pay you to slurp my nut out of your girl's cunt, faggot.

>I got it
5 MINUTES

>>8386456
Well there are 16 shields, unless i'm missing something and romans carried multiple shields it's 16men

>>8386333
30

>>8386735
Yeah you're definitely missing something, a fucking brain.

>>8386752

>>8385672
please be larp

>>8386333
literally 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2

its fucking 130 ....fucking brainlet board

>>8386481
uhh yea that's a pretty reasonable assumption that he lost by buying it, that's how 99% of businesses work dummy.

>>8386813
Try again. Explain your reasoning so I can laugh at you.

>>8384467
Cannot believe I had to read halfway through the thread to find this answer. The transaction literally doesn't fucking matter. The lady stole $100, so the owner lost the $100. It does not matter that she came back and spent some of it. Margins don't matter because those groceries could have been sold to another person and it wouldn't change the fact that $100 was stolen by this lady.

>>8383703
Wrong, the hundred has now been returned to the register, it's not stolen twice, the guys out 100$, that is all, you all might be retarded

>>8384217
it's this. millenials here must really be stupid.

>>8386829
just wow,
>businesses work by making a loss
why not count for the fact that he sold the shit to someone else, are you going to assume he made a loss then also

>>8386897
I just tell myself people are really just trolling. If I had to believe this amount of stupidity I'd hit levels of despair not possible in the human brain.

>>8383630
bhhahahha don't forget the margin cost the owner add to the goods....
That $70 is retail price....

The correct answer is:
G. NONE OF THE ABOVE

>>8386333

25

>>8384467
This, the 200$ people are trolls, the rest is completly retarded

Wow you niggers are dumb,

She purchased goods with the 100 so say their markup is 10%

She stole initially 100

Repaid 70

70 minus 10% is 63 in stolen goods

Plus 30 back

So around about 93 bucks

Stupid fucking question and the people asking it should have never been in a position to ask it

>>8386911
dude wtf are you even. how is it related to what I said? did you even understand my post?
the owner must have bought the product from a manufacturer. when he buys from products he is already at a loss, that's why he sells them with a premium, to cover the losses and make a bit of profit. If he already bought the groceries that were stolen, how can he possibly lose what he paid for AGAIN? If I buy a gum for $1 and you steal it does it mean I lost $2? of course not. Same here, if the groceries are stolen you can't say that you lost 70 again

>>8383630
Jesus Fucking Christ. You guys are a bunch of fucking brainlets.

The cunt with legs stole $100 from the store. Buys groceries worth $70, then the retarded clerk gives her $30.

How much did the store lose? $200. He has to recoup the losses to restock the same amount of groceries he had before.

It t-t-takes him 5 minutes to return to the store

>>8383630
$100. You can't assume there's a profit on the sale, retailers will break even or take a loss on certain items if the lifetime value of the customer which they're selling to justifies it.

>>8383630
100 minus whatever profit the owner made on the thing she bought.

$0
The store owner checks his end of sales report and notices he is missing cash, he checks his CCTV and finds the thief and claims the money lost through his insurance.

It's a trick question, the bizness owner has insurance so he's not out a dime. It's too see if you're detail oriented.

>>8383691
kek

>>8387047
>the owner must have bou...

here we go again with assumptions and overthinking, it's a simple question and you keep going on about margins premiums and shit.
The owner of the store lost $100 when he got stoled from and that's it. The rest is voluntary transaction that makes no difference to the outcome. Never have i counted anything twice so i don't know where that about the gum came from.

If you can't see why it's 100$ you are beyond help mate im done here

>>8383630
But was the lady that stole from the store a black lady?

>>8387086
But she used the $100 to buy the product and receive change

She took $100 but gave it back, the only things she left with in the end is $70 in goods and $30 in change, so the owner is only out $100 but legally it would probably count as stealing $200

>>8383630

The cashier lost a 100$ note, then register a sale and gave the change.

100$>>8383630

>>8383690

>>8383823
>>8384465


Don't overthink asshokes

Circle none is correct. Write in, "What are his margins?" Instant job.

>>8387268
no. I'll try to make it very simple so a moron like you can understand.
at the start of the event, the owner has no losses. then, $100 gets stolen. now he has -100. then the thief gives him $100. at this point he again has no losses, because she just returned the money. then he gives her $30, so he is at -30 at the end.
I can't possibly spell it out in a simpler way.

>>8383630
$420 bc he a bitch senpai

The answer is 100. Everyone who disagrees is an idiot who doesn't deserve to have 1 satoshi in his wallet.

>>8383630
Learn to read you stupid niggers


She STOLE $100

Then owner profited $70-COGS

Therefore the owner LOST : $100-($70-COGS) =

$30 + COGS

The owner LOST:
30 dollars plus the cost of goods sold.

>>8384465
When profit margins are considered, this may be true, but we’ll never know because the problem doesn’t state it. Regardless, the drawer itself is still short 100 dollars. So he has lost 100 dollars plus or minus any profit margins from the 70 dollars worth of goods. (It’s also possible he sold that 70 dollars worth of goods at a loss due to liquidation, clearance, obsolescence, etc) Not enough information presented.

>>8388112
>Pic
You can buy jammers online

>>8383859
It's 170, she stole the 100 and stole 70 dollars worth of groceries, change doesn't really count.

>>8383630


$100 so dumb. She just converted her stolen money to merch and money

>>8387533
what about the stolen item you fucking nigger? are you dumb? can i stole your fucking money and you will consider it a no loss because you had to pay for it some time ago? are you retarded or are you larping?

>>8388112
Nope. It literally doesn’t matter if the thief bought the goods or someone else, the register is still 100 dollars short at the end of the day so really the formula should look like this:

Girl steals 100 dollars
-100
Girl uses 100 dollars to buy 70 dollars worth of goods
+100 - 30 for change and $70 retail price of goods so this part is a wash. Except, the goods may have an overhead cost that is unknown. So the formula now looks like this:

- 100 + or - COGS (because the owner have made profit on the goods or they have taken a loss due to liquidation, clearance, etc.)

So many false answers here
I thought this is /biz full of crypto millionaires. Seems more like /retard full of bagholders. When you can't solve that shit how can you trade crypto

-100
+100
-30
-70

= -100

>>8387533
Oh god not this thread again.

What about this post attracts 33% normal people, 33% morons and 33% LARPs.

>>8388324

1% bob + vagene

>>8388311
But what if the goods only cost the store owner $40? Then he would have made money on that transaction. So it wouldn’t be 100 dollars. We don’t know if the owner made or lost money on the transaction. So you don’t know for sure.

>>8383662
this
-100-70(in goods)+100-30=-100

>>8387533
Fuck no, are you on meth?

Scenario 1: honest buyer. Cashier has 100 dollars. Buyer buys items, gives 70 dollars to cashier. Cashier has 170 dollars.

Szenario 2: thief. Thief steals 100 dollars. Cashier has zero dollars. Thief buys items with 100 dollars, gets 30 dollars back. Cashier had 70 dollars.

Now please compare those scenarios. How fucking much is 170-70? It's 100.

>>8388345

i know but it says goods for 70 ... and not to overthink it which is exactly that ... as the good might be worth only 10$ in cost if its cheetos and flip flops ... fuck knows :D

>>8388346
See
>>8388345

>>8388385
Yea I’m not overthinking it other than saying the owner has either sold his goods to the thief under one of three scenarios: 1. The store profited from the sale 2. He lost money from the sale 3. The owner incurred no loss or profit from the sale. Not enough information.

>>8383630
$100

lady steals $100
store is now -100
lady buys $70 worth of goods
this means lady has profited $100 ($30 plus $70 worth)

The store lost $100 total.

If she stole the shirt in addition to the $100, the store would be down $170. But she paid $70 for the shirt (with the 100). Thus her total profit is a $70 shirt and $30 in cash, for a total of $100

>the absolute state of /biz/

>>8383630
2/3

>>8383630
The lady broke the NAP which means the store-owner can now legally enslave her for life. Since a middle-aged women can net a pretty easy $1200 on the slave market I'd say the store owner is up $1100 on the transaction.

>>8383816
Sorry but all hope is gone for that fucking linkies

It doesn’t matter where she spent the money. Because it happens to be in the same place she stole the funds, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the owner is experiencing an additional loss. It’s the additional information that causes confusion for most. $100 was stolen. Simple as that.

>>8384465
Did you factor in his wage costs as he was dealing with the thief, who he otherwise would not have if she hadnt stole, hmmmmmmmm

>>8384367
This is the most retarded shit ever. It doesn't matter which exact bill is given back. Stolen or other one. Doesn't change the sum lol

Everyone who wrote an answer other than 100 delete your private keys now.

kek

>>8388259
If I buy a gum for $1 and you steal it from me did I lose $2?

>>8388381
OMG. I had to create this picture to help you out. surely THIS time you'll see how you're wrong

>>8388781
you didn't accouint for the $70 loss in goods 70+30 =100

- 100
+ 100
- 70
- 30
= -100

>>8383630
somewhere between 130 and 200, maybe actually more than 200 because of legal fees, money laundering is no joke

>>8388781
Congratulations. You wasted your time making that stupid graph. Still wrong. Still 100. Just get some bills and play it through.

>>8388781
you didn't include the 70$ worth of groceries in this picture you absolute moron.

>>8388781
There is no "pay back".
There is even no difference when person A steals and buys or person A steals but person B buys. In the end you can divide this scenario into two parts. One 100 dollar steal and one 70 dollar regular buy. No matter who steals and who buys, same person or different.

Fucking brainlets. The correct answer is 1k eoy if the product purchased by the thief was chain link.

>>8388820
>>8388850
>>8388855
you don't need to include the 70 in the losses how dumb are you?
the owner must have spend at most $70 to get the groceries to put into his shop. he then sells them to customers. He is already at a loss of $70 after buying so now he wants to sell to cover his losses and make a bit of profit but let's say for the sake of argument that he just sells for the same price he bought. If the groceries get stolen, he didn't lose an additional $70. By your logic, the total loss from these groceries amounts to at least $140 which is impossible. You are all retards

>>8388905
idk what you're trying to say. it doesn't matter how you spin off the scenario, at the end of the day the owner has 30 less in the register NOT 100

>>8388992
Answer is 17 only linkies can't solve this

>>8385672
never become a financial advisor, thanks

>>8389024
> the owner must have spend at most $70 to get the groceries to put into his shop
the question literally says to not overthink it

>>8389024
https://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2017/01/18/how-smart-are-you-the-stolen-money-viral-math-problem-the-correct-answer-explained/

It's still 100 sorry.

>>8383630
Instead of arguing over what the correct answer is, why don't we ask which answer op chose?
Did you get the job op? What was the answer?

>>8389063
I didn't overthink it though, look at the picture I posted - it's VERY simple, I just have to go a bit more in depth so the brainlets see where they are wrong.

>>8389136
>a blogger said it's 100 so it must be true

130

>>8389139
Okay genius so it's 30 + the goods. Not definitely not just 30

>>8389168
It is clearly explained like I did before. Even has it explained that you can divide the two scenarios. Theft of 100 dollars and a regular 70 dollar transaction. For the outcome it doesnt matter if the thief is the same person as the buyer or not. Just admit that you're wrong lol

>>8389231
You didn't explain shit. All I read is incoherent mambo jumbo. How about you refute this picture >>8388781 and my points here >>8389024 before acting like a smart ass

>>8389228
Just because you say so doesn't make it true. refute my points above.

>>8383855
Excellent breakdown. I would consider hiring you, Cuck

Here's the problem visualized for the retards.
1 is what the owner has first, 2 is what he has afterwards. Are you able to tell how much he lost? You should be able to solve this.

the owner has gained $0.

it is because the owner has to have paid $100 to the supplier to get the stuff to put in his shop, therefore when the lady takes the bill and gives it back he is at no loss, because...

Supplier cost = $100

^^^ Business is already at a loss of $100

1. In the register = $100
2. lady steals the bill, but gives it back later to buy the stuff
3. business is now at a gain of $100

because the supplier cost is already $100, and because the business received $100

-$100 + $100 = $0 net gain

100 since the only thing stolen is the money. The thief did not steal the grocery goods

>>8389330
This is not what is lost. It is just the outcome of scenario 1. You have to draw another one for the scenario that nothing got stolen beforehand and then compare the 2 outcomes. You will see that the difference of those 2 outcomes is 100 dollars.

>>8389365
That's what the first one is. 2 is what the owner has after the entire series of events, and 1 is what he has before anything gets stolen. Here, I'll make it very clear for you.

>>8383630
Remove the part where she steals 100 dollars, brainlets. If it didn't net out to a equal transaction, then everytime you buy something you're just conjuring money out of nowhere...
ABSLUT brainlts

>>8389330
Sorry forget my post I like this drawing. Too late to think already

he loses $200.... $70 in goods + $30 in cash and the original $100 that is confiscated by the police for accepting stolen funds. You people are fucking retarded

THE owner is at a net loss of $100. $70 of food, and $30 cash.

>>8389487
This is the perfect short summarized answer. 1 million linkies for this.

We do not know as we do not know the buy price of the asset, how fungible the asset is, and whether that asset can be restocked before a sale.

Probably a bit less than $100, depends on what she bought and the markup of said goods

>>8389523
> HE OVER THOUGHT IT

>>8389523
But we know the amount of money for what it could have been sold so we can argue the theoretical win of 70 dollar products has been gifted to the buyer since he paid with the stolen money. In addition we have the 30 dollars cash.

>>8389426
Everyone look at this.
Case closed midget linkies.

>>8389024
Except for that the items were bought with HIS OWN money. Man I thought it was dumb that they would even ask this question but now I see why they do. Fuck man your life must be rough as shit.

>>8389291
bro to make this extremely simple for your mongoloid ass, the chick leaves the store with 70$ worth of food, and 30$ of his cash. Thats a 100$ loss for him. 70$ which he would have gotten from someone else for the food, and 30$ of his cash. WHAT ARE YOU REFUTING YOU STUPID FUCK

so $100 missing and $70 worth of product sold!?!
what would make this guys register even again??? adding $100 bill back to his register! solved!!! (the transaction for the $70 purchase was correct math) still missing$100... get your $100 back you just made a sell for $70.00.

>>8383630
If your employer uses that many interrogation marks in a row just punch him in the face and walk away.

>>8389637
shots fired. Mic dropped.

Also the owner didn't lose shit because he'll just deduct that $100 from the employee's pay, so the answer is 0.

>>8389497
based

Jesus some people really are retarded. Look at what the final result was. She got $70 worth of goods, plus $30 change, all of which was paid with the owner's money. He is out $100. How is this difficult to understand?

>>8383845
>maintain a view of the world as a rational place
The world is a totally irrational place. 100%.

You honestly think this world is rational? What is wrong with you?

>>8389592
no. he INVESTED money into groceries which he needs to SELL to make PROFIT. he is at a loss because he didn't buy the groceries for himself. It is his business and every time he puts money into the business he LOSSES.
when that woman stole she didn't magically make him lose $70 AGAIN. Are you saying he lost ANOTHER $70? LMAO.

>>8383630
Its 100 obviously but if you want to get specific you can say 100 - profit from the sale

>>8389637
bro don't over think it they just talkign about the crash register lol

>>8389645
Let's say person A only steals and person B buys goods for 70 dollars with a 100 dollar bill, you cannot differentiate those two cases right? In this case we have a regular transaction and 100dollar cash loss. Goods for 70 dollar have left the store as well as 30 dollar change. The stolen 100 cash from person A and the given 100 cash from person B give sum zero.

>>8389839
>Goods for 70 dollar have left the store
no. no no no no. stupid. stupid. stupid. The goods have already caused the owner a loss as soon as he bought them. Just because they vanish doesn't make him lose ANOTHER 70.

>>8389882
They don't vanish. The owner literally buys pays those goods with his own money. He accepts his own 100 dollar bill and gives 30 back. Which means he links a 70 dollar worth to the goods. Since the goods leave the store, the 70 dollar worth is also gone.

>>8383855
Based journal entry anon

>>8383630
the real answer is 60
the do not over think it is 130

>>8383845
>I literally cannot maintain a view of the world as a rational place

You seriously believe people are rational? You realize how irrational that is?

The lady leaves his store with $70 worth of goods + $30 = $100. Simple.

>>8383630
100$

70$ worth of goods were traded for 70$, and the lady kept 30$, so overall she still has 100$ worth of the owner's shit

this isn't including tax

>>8383662
>>8383693
>>8383718
>>8383791
>>8384132
>>8384253
at least some of you are not brain dead

You cannot differenciate between this scenario and a 100 dollar theft followed by a regular purchase from another person therefore: 100 dollar cash loss = 30 dollar cash plus 70 dollar product loss

>>8388427
>>8388427
>>8388427
>>8388427
>>8388427
Have none of you fags considered this???

>>8390563
The shop owner is $100 down

He then gives $30 change without actually having gained anyextra to his cash register

He has also lost an item of stock for no return.


Hes lost the $100 bill, the $30 in change and the shoes.


Basically she walked in, picked up the shoes, went to the register and took $30 off the cashier.

>>8390634
umm arent you missing the part where it says that she BOUGHT (not stole) the goods with the 100 bill? In order to make change, the owner had to take back the 100 dollar bill that she stole, brainlet.

70 since his actual cost of goods was less than 70, probably more like 40 before his markup. Add the 30 and he's out 40 in goods and 30 in cash... 70

>>8390722
youre just assuming he sold for profit but you really dont know

>>8390688
Yup.

>>8390739
>youre just assuming he sold for profit but you really dont know

who doesn't sell for...

ffs, forgot where i was for a second

>>8390688
yes but for this example you could take the $100 bill totally out of the equation.

Essentially she could take the $100 bill out of the register and put it in the owners hand and wed still be in the same position.

Shes taking it off him and giving it back.

What hes actually losing is the $30 change, the cost price of the shoes and the mark up he had budgeted to make on them.


Lets pretend hes just opened up, in his register he has only $130.

The bitch steals the $100, $30 are left in the register.

She returns and 'buys' the shoes, there is now $130 in the register.

He gives the $30 change and she fucks off.

Shopbro is now confused as to why he had $130 and now theres only $100.

There should be $200 in there.

The owner lost 50$

>>8383690
This

>>8390742
The thief adding the legitimate transaction with the 100 dollar bill is where everybody gets sidetracked and sees black and white. But if you've ever worked retail or you're not stupid, you know the retail price of 70 dollars for goods is not always the cost of the goods to the owner/company. It could be more or less. Yes it says dont overthink to throw you off, but i know better bc wagecucking retail is my cucklife

man most of you are pretty wrong. The question asks. "How much did the owner lose?"
1) he lost the 70 in good
2) he lost the 30 in change
3) he lost the trust in his hardworking workers who he will inevitably blame for the missing 100 dollars

>>8390756
Lots of places do sell for no profit or take losses. Car dealerships, cell phone carriers, gamestop, you name it.

people always overthink this trick question. all you have to do to easily figure out the answer is ask yourself "what did the lady leave the store with?" The lady leaves the store with $70 worth of goods and $30 in change. Therefore the owner lost $100 in value

>>8390833
This

fcking this

It's $100 you brainlets

>>8390833
To keep it biz related, if I bought a BTC for 1k dollar and it gets stolen now, then I lost the value which it is worth now, which I could sell it for. Not what I bought it for. At least in my practical opinion. Same with the shit in the store.

Its 140 you idiots

itssimple

70-30
than +100


how are you guys so stupid

>>8390898
It's three fiddy and a half eaten muffin

>>8390833
>>8390857
Both of you are assuming the goods cost the owner 70 dollars. He might have only paid 10 for them, or 1500. You dont know

>>8390916
Based on general business practice from a small mom and pop store he probably paid around $20 for them.

So technically your correct

However, he has bought them with the expectation of achieving the $50 mark up which he has also lost.

Depends how you want to look at it.

>>8390916
There's no 'I dont know' anwser

>>8390898
i almost took ur bait u faggot

>>8390964
And that's why the question is bullshit and everyone trying to answer it and justify their bullshit answer can't think on a macro level of business. None of you will //make it//

>>8390898
He hasnt lost the $100 you lord of all faglords

>>8390767
>>8390767
You're not taking into account the value of the shoes you fuck. We're talking about how much value is lost not how much cash.

In your example. $130 in register. $70 pair of shoes in store.

$200 total value - $100 stolen = $30 in register + $70 store value.
= $100 total value

She 'buys' the shoes with $100 bill.

$100 total value + $100 cash = $130 in register + $70 shoes.

The shoes are now taken away from store value and also $30 in change he gives the stupid shoe buying bitch.

$200 total value - $70 shoes - $30 change = $100 total store value.

We have gone from an initial store value of $200 to $100. The owner has lost $100. Fucking brainlets I swear

Silly trick question
It is either $30 or $100
>How $30?
The owner losses $100 to theft.
Then he gets $70 in sales
(Giving back $30 in change isn't a loss btw)
So it's 100-70 = $30

>If we are not factoring in the sale it's just the stolen $100.

>>8383630
We should make this a regular thing on biz where we all fail at solving math problems

>>8383690
(You) deserve this

$230

>>8383630
Ok so some people in this thread hair the brainlets enough to give you the fish, 100 is the correct answer. What ever sail transaction happened after is recovered and should not be co sidered in the loss transaction.

Here how to catch the fish. Rephrase the question. Consider how the result will be measured. I repharsed the question three times because i didnt think the result made sense considering the sequence of events. I dunno its abtrick or something ij thebway its phrased that makes you add up unrelated things. So rephrase ornbetter recreate the sequence of events. Thus onenwas easy for me cause i did book keeping for about 1 year 10 years ago. If you taking a financial position and you cant remember this then im not gonna want you in management you gonna miss shit and someones gonna steal money like amotherfucker. You have to be systematic in your approach to accounts. And problem solving break it down in to bits your brainlet can handle.

Regards fellow brainlet failed grade 1