You run a shop and someone steals $100

[Reality]

Because it's his cash (the shopkeepers), he's paying with his own money for a product he already owns



If the thief stole $100 and then stole $60 worth of merchandise it would be the same loss of $160.

So how much would the owner lose if he gave a friend $100 in cash and that friend came back a week later and bought something for $60?

 

[BasketCase]

Coli math threads are hilarious

 

[BocaRear]

You're saying that if I go into a store and buy something for $60 the store loses $60

No

 

[25YOUTHS!!]

Lol at the people looking at it from the thief's perspective. The thief only leaves with $40 cash and $60 worth of goods.
The shopkeeper loses that $100 and approx $60 worth of goods he spent purchasing the product which he already owns in the first place.

The question is how much money did the shopkeeper lose, not how much money did the thief gain.

/thread

He didn't lose the $60 of merchandise tho, the thief PAID for it. But since the $60 came from the shop owner originally, net gain =$0.
$60 cash= $60 in merchandise

 

[badhat]

If the thief stole $100 and then stole $60 worth of merchandise it would be the same loss of $160.

What if the thief stole $100, then stole $60 worth of merchandise, then the shopkeeper gave the thief $40 (dude had bad sight and thought the thief was a different customer that forgot their change).

Ignore why the shopkeeper made the mistake, but what is the total dollar amount lost there?

 

[The Fire]

You lost $200

The initial amount stolen , The merchandise lost The change given to said person
(-100) + (-60) + (-40) = -200

You're forgetting the fact that the thief gave the shopkeeper $100, he didn't steal the the product after the original $100 theft
Shopkeeper only lost $100

fail to grasp the concept of shop brehs

Nikka are you retarded

the thief essentially traded that $100 bill for a $60 product and $40 in cash where tha fukk are you getting the extra money from

 

[GoPro]

The answer is 100

Just based off the first page, and knowing it 22 pages of ppl arguing this, I feel sorry for some of you cats

 

[BocaRear]

He didn't lose the $60 of merchandise tho, the thief PAID for it. But since the $60 came from the shop owner originally, net gain =$0.
$60 cash= $60 in merchandise

The thief "PAID" for it with the shopkeeper's money tho

 

[NoMayo15]

Lol at the people looking at it from the thief's perspective. The thief only leaves with $40 cash and $60 worth of goods.
The shopkeeper loses that $100 and approx $60 worth of goods he spent purchasing the product which he already owns in the first place.

The question is how much money did the shopkeeper lose, not how much money did the thief gain.

/thread

Again, you're counting the goods twice when you don't know what it cost the shopkeeper to acquire said goods.

It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption that you can't verify as accurate. You can only go by what's explicitly stated in the problem.

 

[naw]

tall israeli making yall look dumb af fr

 

[NycStacked]

You're forgetting the fact that the thief gave the shopkeeper $100, he didn't steal the the product after the original $100 theft
Shopkeeper only lost $100

ACTUALLY the correct answer is $-1000, business insurance claims make you eat it for anything less....so If I'm the owner...the B*tch stole $1000 from me

 

[str8up]

The thief "PAID" for it with the shopkeeper's money tho

Exactly, he gave the original $100 back and in return he got $60 worth of merchandise and $40 in change

 

[BocaRear]

So how much would the owner lose if he gave a friend $100 in cash and that friend came back a week later and bought something for $60?

The owner would lose nothing.

The friend would still owe the owner $100 in cash

These are two separate events.

 

[BocaRear]

Exactly, he gave the original $100 back and in return he got $60 worth of merchandise and $40 in change

Pay for things twice brehs

 

[BocaRear]

Again, you're counting the goods twice when you don't know what it cost the shopkeeper to acquire said goods.

It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption that you can't verify as accurate. You can only go by what's explicitly stated in the problem.

Whilst I agree that it is an assumption, it is a LOGICAL assumption based on Occam's razor. How does a shop run? Simply it runs on a profit/loss system.
Therefore this is the simplest conclusion.