You run a shop and someone steals $100

[NoMayo15]

Breh, the premise of a shop is buying goods from a supplier (meaning you're already -$)
And then selling it to a customer to recuperate your loss (break even) and gain a profit.

It's not like I'm pulling this assumption out of thin air.

And that's why I said the shopkeeper has lost APPROX $160 give or take the original costs of product.

Yea, but it's assumption that's not specified in the problem. It's not a part of the problem....you're basically pulling it out of thin air.

You could drive yourself crazy if you try to solve word problems by bringing in your own, assumed, outside information.

 

[BocaRear]

Be dumb as fukk brehs.

I'm out

Fail to read the question brehs

How much money did you (shopkeeper) lose?

Mental midget

 

[zerozero]

now it's getting a bit over complicated breh,

It's simply: the shopkeeper paid for his merchandise twice

Yes... if you pay for something twice, you lose the value once. You are counting the loss twice.

If I bought hot dog ingredients, and made a hot dog, then paid to eat the hot dog, you can only count one of these steps as the value I lost. Either I shouldn't have had to buy the ingredients/make the hot dog or I shouldn't have had to pay to eat it.

 

[klientel]

Y'all nikkas still arguing this shyt? It's 100....just let it go. Even some of the biggest idiots earlier in the thread now realize it's 100. If you don't understand why it's 100, then that's fine just say that, but don't try to adamantly defend shyt thats CLEARLY wrong.

 

[BocaRear]

Yea, but it's assumption that's not specified in the problem. It's not a part of the problem....you're basically pulling it out of thin air.

You could drive yourself crazy if you try to solve word problems by bringing in your own, assumed, outside information.

It's a logical conclusion to draw from the question, and it IS specified as the question is simply:
"How much money did you(shopkeeper) lose"

From the shopkeeper's perspective he has lost $100

AND an additional approx $60 worth of goods as he already previously paid for the goods he paid for again.

Simple.

 

[TillWeDie]

this thread is incredible in every sense of the word

 

[LV Koopa]

No,

because the shopkeeper already paid for his goods at approx $60. So he has paid for his goods TWICE.

You telling me if you pay for something you own, you break even?

That's wrong and irrelevant. We have no idea how much the item costs the shopkeeper (we don't even know what the item is). Only variables we can account for are PRICE (60), INITIAL DOLLAR AMOUNT (100), and CHANGE (40). Some people did it another way by looking at it as assets and cash. Either way you can't lose more than $100 (rofl @ 200, you cant lose more than what you started with) and you can't lose less than 40 (the change).

But you lost $100 in total because 40 of it was in CHANGE and the 60 from the PRICE (can also be considered the asset) is gone.

Here's another way to look at it. A customer comes to the register and pays for something that costs $60 with a $100 bill. You give them $40 in change. You're business is now +$60 in the register. Wonderful!

Now you find out that $100 came out the register. You paid for a $60 item with your own $100. You were already -40 from change, now you're out another $60 from the PRICE of the item. You lost $100.

 

[Damnshow]

I am sitting out there and trying to think how the fukk would this situation mean you lost 200?

The key word is that he gives you those 100 dollars back, how the fukk is it so hard to figure out? He basically said "I will give you 100 back if you give me some shyt from your store thats worth 60 dollars and 40 dollars in cash"

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

Fail to read the question brehs

How much money did you (shopkeeper) lose?

Mental midget

@ the irony.

The shop owner is out $100 breh. The thief came back and traded $60 cash for $60 of merchandise.

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

It's a logical conclusion to draw from the question, and it IS specified as the question is simply:
"How much money did you(shopkeeper) lose"

From the shopkeeper's perspective he has lost $100

AND an additional approx $60 worth of goods as he already previously paid for the goods he paid for again.

Simple.

But he got $60 cash for em from the thief
He EXCHANGED the $$ from one form (cash) to another (merchandise). Doesn't say how much it cost him, profit margin etc.

 

[BocaRear]

I'm going in circles with you all

Fail to understand the premise of a business brehs.

Yall mental midgets have a nice day and try not to get fukked into purchasing your own possessions.

 

[feelosofer]

Damn math is not some of you guy's strong points.

 

[LV Koopa]

Here's a 3rd way to look at it: think about how counterfeiting works.

I have a fake $100 bill. It's actually worth nothing. If I wanted to convert it to real cash, I'd go to a store and buy something. I won't have $100 in cash, but I will have assets + cash that = $100. (The price of the item + change from spending the $100).

That's how a fake $100 item is turned into $100 worth of value.

This thief example is the same thing. Except instead of starting with something worth $0, we already have $100. Now ask yourself, how would I turn $100 of cash into assets + cash?

 

[klientel]

The easiest way to think about it for y'all idiots who have trouble understanding simple math is to break it up in phases....

Phase 1: Thief steal $100. Shop owner is now -100
Phase 2: Thief gives comes back to buy stuff and gives the shop owner the $100 back. Shop owner is back to 0
Phase 3: Thief leaves with $60 worth of merchandise and $40 change. Shop owner is back to -100

I'm trying my hardest to see how that's not clear, but I can't

 

[roxxthe96er]

A lot of y'all are so dumb... It's ine thing to answer wrong initially if you don't think about it but DAMN at all the people in here fighting for their point when they're wrong... I swear I just put 20 headson ignore...