Come in and test your knowledge brehs

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

No breh... it really really really doesn't... at all.

I dont know how to explain this to you, so just trust me.

This is how you came to your conclusion -

"If any you are having trouble understanding this, think of it this way:

"-One person steals from $100 from the store, runs away, and is never seen ever again
-Someone else buys something in a store for an arbitrary amount of money

How much money is lost?"

The problem with this is the person who stole the money is actually buying $70 worth of goods and getting $30 in change, your reasoning would only make sense if that person who stole never returned AND someone else went into the store and used $100 to buy $70 worth of goods + $30 in exchange. It's not the person themselves or the bill itself (because we're clearly talking about the money the owner lost), but the amount he lost after both the incidents.

 

[Gold]

So we're assuming the owner is buying AND selling the product at face value? b/c that's the only way $70 cash= $70 of merchandise
$30 cash=$30 cash
$70 merchandise=/= $70 cash

How bout this scenario: What if the thief steals $100 cash vs $100 of post tax merchandise? Is the loss to the owner the same?
I would say no b/c the markup is added to the merchandise, and the owner paid less than $100 for it. In that case you have to take into consideration (and subtract from the loss) the markup portion of the $70 in the OP.
If you say yes then you have to make more assumptions, including that the owner is buying $100 of merchandise for $100 and selling it for $100

Breh... you're really over-complicating this..

Here let me prove it to you. Remove the theft from it completely okay?
"A man buys 70 dollars worth of goods, pays with a 100, gets 30 in change. How much money has the store owner lost?"

Answer that question and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Celerii]

In terms of cash it's only 30.

this is what i got. i didnt add the $30 the owner gave back to the guy because i thought it was irrelevant to the situation.

 

[Gold]

This is how you came to your conclusion -

"If any you are having trouble understanding this, think of it this way:

"-One person steals from $100 from the store, runs away, and is never seen ever again
-Someone else buys something in a store for an arbitrary amount of money

How much money is lost?"

The problem with this is the person who stole the money is actually buying $70 worth of goods and getting $30 in change, your reasoning would only make sense if that person who stole never returned AND someone else went into the store and used $100 to buy $70 worth of goods + $30 in exchange. It's not the person themselves or the bill itself (because we're clearly talking about the money the owner lost), but the amount he lost after both the incidents.

Yes, thats exactly it.

It doesn't matter that the same person came back in the store, it could have been anyone else, it could have been you. It doesn't change anything whatsoever.

 

[Gold]

this is what i got. i didnt add the $30 the owner gave back to the guy because i thought it was irrelevant to the situation.

its 30 in cash, 70 in goods yep (100 total). The question is confusing people because there is so much irrelevant information that people are focusing on.

He lost 100 dollars
Then he had a normal business transaction

End result = he lost 100 dollars

 

[flea]

$100. Saw the answer on Facebook today

 

[Celerii]

its 30 in cash, 70 in goods yep (100 total). The question is confusing people because there is so much irrelevant information that people are focusing on.

He lost 100 dollars
Then he had a normal business transaction

End result = he lost 100 dollars

but the guy "gave" back $70 dollars back to the owner when he bought things at the store, right?
edit: never mind. i understand it now

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Yes, thats exactly it.

It doesn't matter that the same person came back in the store, it could have been anyone else, it could have been you. It doesn't change anything whatsoever.

But you said "-Someone else buys something in a store for an arbitrary amount of money"

Like I said, your reasoning would only make sense if somebody else came into the store and bought the same amount of goods + given the same amount of change. If $100 is stolen from somebody that never returns and somebody else comes into the store buying a different amount of goods and given a different amount of change, than the amount of money the owner lost would be different. That's why the $100 stolen and the goods purchased + change given is relevant.

 

[Gold]

But you said "-Someone else buys something in a store for an arbitrary amount of money"

Like I said, your reasoning would only make sense if somebody else came into the store and bought the same amount of goods + given the same amount of change. If $100 is stolen from somebody that never returns and somebody else comes into the store buying a different amount of goods and given a different amount of change, than the amount of money the owner lost would be different. That's why the $100 stolen and the goods purchased + change given is relevant.

I said that to highlight that it doesn't matter.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I said that to highlight that it doesn't matter.

Right. I guess we can agree on the simplified answer being $100.

 

[larsattack]

$200

 

[Celerii]

$200

 

[larsattack]

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

Breh... you're really over-complicating this..

Here let me prove it to you. Remove the theft from it completely okay?
"A man buys 70 dollars worth of goods, pays with a 100, gets 30 in change. How much money has the store owner lost?" Owner gains $70 minus product cost. Since he's getting paid with his own $$, he LOST the $70 minus markup plus the $30 cash. Assuming the markup is more than $.00, the total lost will be less than $100 cash.

Answer that question and you'll see what I mean.

We'll have to agree to disagree breh
You're assuming the 2 events are independent ( the theft and buying $70 in goods) when there's no indication that they are.
The $70 goods=/= $70 cash to the owner
Owner is out $30 cash plus $70 worth of goods. That's the simplest answer. You would have to make further assumptions to extrapolate that to be $100 cash. Only way the owner is out the $70 in cash is if that's what the goods cost HIM.

Lets say this: What if the thief stole $30 in cash plus goods that you later ring up to be worth $70, is that the same as him stealing $100 cash? I'm guessing you think it is, thus our fundamental disagreement.

 

[Blackrogue]

Where'd @The Dollar Menu go with his answer?

I gotta see his alternate ending