I think it's 200
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.
I think it's 200
100. At the end of the day the store owner is out 70 dollars worth of goods and 30 dollars cash
>>769085889
Please tell me this isn't a question for some sort of legitimate course work. The punctuation and grammar are atrocious.
The logical way to view this is that only the first part matters. The woman stole 100 dollars.
In the second part, there is no exchange of value as 100 dollars is exchanged for 70 dollars of goods and 30 dollars change.
drawer is short 100$
>>769085889
impossible to answer. I doubt the shop was selling goods at cost. we'd have too know the original value of the items purchased.
>>769085889
$200
>>769085889
100. The second part of the equation doesn't matter.
>>769086130
It looks like an online IQ test.
>>769086738
It's 200:
1. She stole 100
2. "Bought" 70, essentially stealing that 70
and
3. Steals another 30 from the shop owner in change
30 + merch cost.
The answer isn't even there.
Nothing to over think.
>>769086711
Profit vs cost doesn't matter because she only stole the money, which was a combination of both.
>>769086859
but then that $70 goes back in the register
100
>>769086859
But she gave the hundred back. She just got 70 dollars worth of food and 30 bucks for free.
>>769086852
You'd hope that an IQ test wouldn't use gratuitous ellipsis, forget apostrophes, or use 3 question marks in a row.
>>769087212
I don't know what it's for. I don't care either.
>>769087076
Can't tell if troll or struggling.
Imagine she steals the $100 then pays with two fifties that she had on her person that were legitimately hers. It is functionally the same. The only reason the money being spent back at the store could be a factor is if the money was fake, otherwise the loss is at the point of theft.
>>769085889
>Lady takes $100
>Buys goods with $100 bill
>Owner gets $100 bill back
>Gives her $30 in change
The owner loses $30
>>769086928
only correct answer I've seen
I would have said "$100 minus the profit margin on the goods", but it's the same thing.
>>769087385
holy shit are you retarded
>>769087385
The owner also loses 100 bucks in products
>>769087510
But in cash, the owner loses $30
>>769087385
+goods worth 70bucks, because the women paid with money she stole, not like she stole 100, gave 70 back and paid with her own money, the owner lost 100bucks.
just think about it that way, she stole goods worth 70bucks and also took 30bucks
>>769087949
>>769087385
She didn't steal the goods or the change, it was a legitimate purchase with stolen money. The loss is $100 at the point of theft.
Any sales after the theft are irrelevant unless the sale is linked to the theft intrinsically as part of the business model. Perhaps as a way of laundering money, insurance fraud or currency exchange in a dual currency purchasing zone.
>>769087034
the $70 that was in the register paid for something else by another customer
>>769085889
170. Everything was a loss from the start.
If you think about it the owner actually loses less than $100 because they obviously mark items at a price which earns profit for the store
>>769088367
LOL.
>Being this retarded while attempting to come off articulate
>>769087327
Basically those are the same thing. The same amount of money is moved regardless. The thing is, she only took 100. The second part of the equation is irrelevant because she isn't taking anything. She could be replaced with a different customer who didn't steal 100 dollars previously and it would be the same.
Or another way of thinking about it, she was so remorseful, she gave the hundred dollars back. And being the retards they are, the grocery store decides to give her 70 dollars worth of food and 30 bucks simply for having a conscience.
There's no difference. 100 dollars goes missing each way.
>>769088609
Are you trying to say you think $100 is the wrong answer?
>>769085889
>I think it's 200
$100 taken, the fact she comes back is irrelevant, it's just a transaction that happens later so $100. She isn't stealing more by using that same $100 it could have come from anywhere.
It’s $200 because the mans change would obviously make it +$100
>>769088561
No, it's 100 dollars, because that food would be sold for profit regardless. Owner loses both that profit and the wholesale cost that they payed for it.
>>769086859
yeah so owner lost 100?...
the fact he gave groceries or 30 is irrelevant because he assumed he got HER 100 and kept 70 and gave 30 so it even itself out, no matter how you put it trough the tills it will still be 100 missing, all groceries change even receit will prove to be accurate, only 100 is unaccounted for.
>>769088411
But the store HAS THAT. The question isn’t how much did she gain, it’s how much did he lose.
>has $100
>loses 100 = -100
>is given $70 = +70 =30
>the $70 is accounted for
> = -30
I played a shit ton of Professor Layton recently, it's 200. She initially took 100 and bought 70 dollars worth of goods which is 170. On top of him handing her more change, 30, which is 200. He didn't gain any profit back from it, making it a loss on him.
>>769087677
But in cash, the owner gains $70
>>769088915
But what about the 70 dollars worth of food they sold. They didn't just get 70 back. They gave something for it too.
>>769089017
Of the 100 that was taken + the stolen goods and the 30 dollars “change”
The store lost 200.
he loses $100.
then he un-loses the $100, but it is in exchange for $70 worth of goods and $30 cash.
at the end of the day, his register will be $30 short.
when stock take comes, there will be another $70 worth of goods missing.
he lost $100 worth of value.
but then he is probably insured against theft, so assuming he has video cameras and he watches them, he will have proof of the theft and be reimbursed.
the thief will be caught, and she will go to jail. it will be on the news, and somewhere in the ghettos, a black grandma will weep for her delinquent daughter, Shayquanda.
>>769089014
It doesn't matter where the money came from in the transaction.
Shop owner ledger:
> -100 from stolen money
> +100 for cash given for goods
> -70 in value from goods
> -30 for change
-100 in total
Idealy this would be less as he makes a profit from selling the goods. So the amount that he lost would be less than 100 depending on how much the goods are marked up. But don't overthink it.
>negative 100 bucks
>gets 70 of it back
> now manager is down 30 bucks
>gives 30 change
>manager is down 60 bucks plus the goods she "bought"
>>769085889
Store owns 170 in cash+goods
Theft of 100.
70 in goods left
Purchase of 70
Store is returned 70 cash that was already attributed to another transaction.
So in reality they just handed off $70 in goods for 0.
minus 30
100.
>>769089330
You added the 30 twice
>>769089116
They sold it. It’s accounted for as an official purchase. But using that same logic, the $100 purchase (why $100 was in the register) is not accounted for.
So in his perspective, he lost $100 worth of goods and $30 worth of cash. $130
She gained $70 worth of goods and $30 cash $100
>>769089216
Let me break this down for the brainlets.
You are selling a TV for 50 bucks.
I pickpocket 100 bucks from your wallet.
A pay you 100 for the tv and you give me 50 change.
How much did you lose?
>>769089420
$50 and a tv
>>769089330
>60
GooD god....
Partial credit for showing your work.
>>769089420
You stole 100 and my TV and i had to give you 50.
So 150 and a TV
>>769089420
I just paid you 50 bucks to take my shitty TV
they lost $100, $70 worth of goods at retail price, and $30 from the change.
>>769089530
The $100 was technically only borrowed
ITT: People that will be cheated
>>769089420
150, I was lost out on a 50 dollar profit, but if your being technical about it, 50.
>>769089530
Which was priced at 50 by you.
So you lost 200 in value.
>>769085889
he lost $30 and $70 worth of goods
>>769089530
>>769089606
>>769089610
Lol how retarded are all of you.
>>769089566
>>769089590
Jesus Christ how do you “people” tie your shoes in the morning
It was not borrowed it was stolen. Imagine there is 2 months in between of my stealing the 100 and you selling the tv if it helps.