Which is the correct answer?
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Which is the correct answer?
>>768531457
$100 combination of value in items and currency.
C.
$100 or $130, depends if you accept the difference earned back with the stolen cash or not.
170
>>768531457
loses $70 in items, $30 in cash
>>768531457
Do your own homework, junior.
It's A.
If the owner is down $100 from the steal, and then gets it all back when she pays for her stuff with the same $100, then he's back to $0 lost. If he gives her $30 in change, then he lost a total of $30.
>>768531457
No answers are correct, as you do not know the profit margin on the items she brought.
The equation would look like this
L=100-P where L is loss and P is profit margin on goods sold.
$30 is incorrect because nothing is at 100% profit
>>768531946
You are forgetting about the $70 of merchandise that he just lost
>>768531457
None of the answers are correct. Whoever wrote the question wants people to answer $100. But if the thief bought $70 worth of goods, then the loss is lower than since there is always mark up on merchandise.
F
lost a total value of 100$
C
>>768532060
It's either $100 or $130, you're not accounting for the fact that the money was stolen in the first place.
>>768531457
None, the trick is that the lady in question is also the owner, so she only "stole" from herself.
He lost 100 dollars and the value of the goods that he paid for from his distributors, so whatever that cost is, but he lost at least 100 dollars
>>768531457
100 minus whatever the difference is between what he paid for the groceries and what he sold them for
>>768532018
Over thinking is the caution here.
The Merchant lost at least $100 + the cost of any labor used to assit her in purchasing the $70 in good. But the Cost of Goods COG's is a variable. Unless we look at the fact he would have sold those goods to another customer for $70 as well so lost 100.. But yeah we can over think it and go far beyond $100.
Still... C
so she takes $100, he loses $100. -100
she comes back to get $70 worth of items. the clerk gains back $70 but loses $70 worth of items. still -100
he gives her $30 back. -30
(-30) + (-100) = -130.
the answer is C.
It's just $100 you mongs. Stop being retardedly pedantic with your markup bullshit, the question says not to overthink it. She basically stole $70 worth of merchandise and $30 in cash.
if you say he lost only 100 dollars then you have no critical thinking skills and you probably work as a car window washer
>>768532690
Nice b8
I'm pretty sure if the cops caught them, they'd have to give back the merchandise and money. 70 in merch. 100 in money, ergo the store lost 170.
you niggas are so dumb its $130
>>768532772
i bet you washed 3 car windows today
>>768532690
>>768532690
>>768532690
He lost at least 100..
We could easily say he claim that loss and was compensated by insurance so 0,
Or that he injured his back replacing good on the shelf and had to go to hospital. So 200..
But oh he was still insured so 0...
Sheesh man...
He lost goods potentially worth 70 and cash of 30 so 100, C.
Are we done yet?
>>768532863
At least some can spell Nigger correctly see above.
>>768532315
This.
Everyone else loses.
>>768532917
Just admit you're wrong bb it's okay harvard will still accept you.
The correct answer is WHO GIVE A FUCK
>>768531946
U are rarted
>>768531457
F
100 stolen, 70 in items, 30 in change
>>768531457
doesn`t matter what she bought or how much change he gave her for the 100. she stole 100 so thats his loss, the margin on the goods she bought is irrelevant, because that margin would have been generated by another customer anyways.
>>768532943
I can tell you've never worked retail. They take stock of the till at the end of the day. When the owner sees he's 100 bucks short of what he should be, he's going to know he lost at least 100 dollars.
cops keep 70$ in goods and 100 in cash as evidence, store charges 170$ in loss to insurance company. don't overthink it guys.
130 dollars.
>>768533696
I started my post with
>He lost at least 100..
Thanks for agreeing with me.
If the owner gave her 30 dollars of change from a 70 dollar purchase it implies she used a 100 dollar note that she stole to buy the goods.
So all in all, the owner gains the 100 dollars she stole back - but, loses 70 dollars worth of merchandise and 30 dollars in cash from the change given.
The owner loses 100 dollars total.
>>768531457
Simple answer is $100.
$30 cash plus $70 value of goods.
More involved answer depends on the cost of goods sold (stolen).
The owner did not loose $70 in goods. He lost what ever those good cost to replace. If you assume a reasonable cost of goods of $25, then he actually lost $55 ($30 cash plus $55 to replace goods lost).
Of course you could say that on that day he will no longer be able to sell those stolen goods; so he is out of the $45 ($70-$25) he could have made in a sale of goods.
>>768532943
I spelt nigga wrong on purpose, nigga. You aren't thinking that the $100 is already stolen, he is receiving stolen money back which is a loss already. So its $100 + the loss of goods worth which is $30, so it is $130.
The answer is B, niggers.
He lost $100, then gets that back when she buys the goods. So temporarily he's back at $0 lost. He then gives her $30 change, so he's down $30, but he's also down $70 of goods. So now, what's the lost revenue on the $70 of goods? It's clearly not $0, because why would he bother selling anything that nets no revenue? It's also not $70, because I'm pretty sure there's not a single product that's 100% profitable. So the lost revenue is somewhere inbetween, so the total loss is somewhere between $30 and $100. The only such answer is B.
>>768534198
You've got to look at potential profit-loss over cost of replacement.
She purchased 70 dollars worth of goods with the owners own money, that otherwise could've been sold for the full profit margin to another customer. The cost of replacement is secondary, as either-way the goods need to be replaced.
This is the dumbest fucking thread i've never taken part in.
>>768534198
>The owner did not loose $70 in goods. He lost what ever those good cost to replace.
He also lost the potential profit he could have made on them, so he lost the value of what he could have sold them for, not just what he paid for them.
>>768533871
nice interpretation, but you are implying that shes actually prosecuted which isn`t the case in this example.
>>768534240
you are a dumb nigga, which loss of goods? she didn`t steal any goods, she regularly bought them.
>>768534503
That was the final line of my post. It just depends how detailed of an analysis you want.
>>768534240
So you are saying you are stupid on purpose.
You know how to spell a word but refuse to.
Now She stole 100 so when the til total is made at the end of the day the owner will be short $100.
She bought 70 worth of goods so the tile shows that she paid 100 was given change of 30 and balances with out any error. Later an Inventory of good will be done and it will show 70 dollars of goods sold and paid for at the expected price. Balance. Total loss to owner 100 unless he has a program for shrinkage wich may include a percentage loss of labor due to having to replace stolen goods order them stock them etc..
Are we done yet?>>768532943
>>768532315
So she stole from herself without knowing?
>>768531457
depends on the rate of VAT
>>768534386
No, he already spent the money to get the goods. By all accounts he doesn't know he didn't get the revenue from it. He only lost the margin.
>>768531457
The owner of the store lost $30 of cash and $70 of goods.
You could claim this is a net loss of $100 but that would be oversimplifying the situation a bit.
The most accurate answer you can give is $30 in cash and $70 in goods.
