Well Veeky Forums?

A hundy

A

Depends on the profit margin of the dress

Attached: 1517968289804.png (400x400, 26K)

60

How much did the owner pay for the goods?

It's $100. If she never stole and just paid with her own $100 bill, would the owner be losing anything? No. So his only loss is the bill she stole.

100.

200

30$

$100.

You could say 'well, it depends on how much money the restaurant is making, profit of said goods bought, amount tipped, etc....'
But in the end it would be the same as if the owner of the restaurant personally bought $100 worth of goods to give away.

>The absolute state of biz

Low IQ board confirmed.

Attached: AAEAAQAAAAAAAAMHAAAAJDk0NDRmODc4LThjOGMtNDJlMC04YzhmLTFjOGVjZDE4YjlhNA.jpg (450x325, 16K)

Id write down 200 to the insurer and let them figure out the details

The fact it was his own 100 seems irrelevant

Guys don't over think it

Store money = x
1. x - 100
2. x - 100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = x - 100

C

Stolen dollars are funny money you fucking autist owner got a worthless piece of paper for $70 worth of goods and $30 real money.

She stole 100$, it's the first thing you mention you dumb pajeet.

Entirely depends on your metric of what a gain or a loss is.

Opportunity cost? Unknowable
Fiat loss? 30
Total asset loss? 30 plus whatever was purchased
Total asset loss at regularly used notions of market value? 100
Psychic loss? Over 100

140.

100 dollars she stole + 70 dollars she stole - 30 he gave back.

It's a trick question you fucking idiots. The answer is not on the list.

$100. The only actual loss was the theft of the $100 bill.

0, he has insurance

Kek b with you

press F to pay bogdanovs

No it wasn't, the $100 bill was given back. The loss was the value of the goods and the $30 change.

$100

She got 70$ goods and 30$ for free so it's c

Explain the $70 of the $100 he got back ya dumb cunt

Women walks in store steals $70 worth of items and $30 cash. $100.

He lost $100+ whatever he would have made in profit selling those goods to legitimate customer.

>everyone is an idiot but me
>doesn't answer question

she didn't steal an additional $70 worth of goods. she used the already stolen $100 to pay for them.

$100

Buys $70 worth of goods WORTH OF FUCKING GOODS KEYWORD IS WORTH

Gives $30 change

100 is stolen 100 is then exchanged for 70 worth of goods and 30. 70 + 30 = 100

Attached: 1520909029698.jpg (249x250, 3K)

There is no store.

The absolute state of biz

Attached: stupidbiljeet.jpg (513x413, 44K)

which still equals $100.

100 (bill)
+ 70 (goods)
- 70 (bill)
+ 30 (change)
= 130 (D)

hurdur

Attached: 1520207234200.jpg (227x250, 4K)

Yeah, but the loss wasn't a $100 bill.

It's C you fucking brainlets

Attached: 1503205339664.jpg (1280x1483, 367K)

WHAT THE FUCK
Replies to this thread really make you think.
Mongolian basketweaver IQ confirmed.

The answer is obviously C as long as we're not considering the price that owner had to pay for stolen products. In fact, he lost little less than $100.

Stupid question, the answer is 70$
He lost 100, then got it back and had to give away 30.

The question is stupid because the owner lost his goods, and the brainlet question does not care about that, it is just pointless and stupid. The question works only in its own little world, and everyone fails because they try to apply common sense in the everyday world, like thinking that the goods he had must have had estimated 70$ dollar value and he lost them, so he lost 70$, but it does not work so in that question.

Just dumb tricks.

Attached: 1516253660324.jpg (960x720, 125K)

Please tell me you're joking. nobody could be this retarded right?

Attached: nono.jpg (399x385, 27K)

Nice bait

$30 and book value of groceries

This
>mfw reading through the whole thread

Attached: 59P5c6X.jpg (960x804, 126K)

The goods are worth 70 you stupid cunt, therfore he also lost the 70. The answer is 100

Fucking state of monkey biz

Come to think of it he proably lost even more than 200 due to inflation fiscal fuck up and taxes.

We know. Your brain is a hot air balloon.

here's the only correct answer:

$30 + the actual cost of the products.

> -100
> -70 = -170
> -170+100=-70
> -70-30

$100

I like how you just laugh at everyone without even posting what you believe the correct answer to be. It would have been funny to see how retarded your logic is. But this way you get to pretend you're right without anyone telling you otherwise.

LaQuandra steals the $100

Decides to bring it back out of the goodness of her heart

LaQuandra remembers she’s a thief and steals these $70 shoes and $30 cash out of the till.

How much did the owner lose you fucking brainlet?

ok, I'm wrong assuming atomic swap between money and products then he lost 100.

Attached: 1508989048634.jpg (221x250, 7K)

$200

Fkkk bois this shouldn’t be so hard.

Down $100
- then she spends the $70 for goods (stays the same)
It’s $100 + the cost price of the goods

Exactly. If LaQuanda didn't steal those $70 Nikes, the owner would have been paid $70 for those Nikes. And LaQuandra walked away with $30 in her pocket. So the answer is $100

>stupid cunt
Haha.

I'm sure that the intended answer to that question is 100$, that is not the problem.

When you buy from store the store owner does not lose fiat, he loses the product, not dollars. You can put a 1000$ label on your dirty shirt and claim it is worth 1000$, that is irrelevant.

Yea sure, the author tries to tell "don't overthink it plz", but his comment is irrelevant, merely a suggestion.

Again, the question is just stupid.

Attached: __hakurei_reimu_touhou_drawn_by_burikarun__047e13cb1c379e59ce7643306705cf7f.png (1440x1440, 1.8M)

If I have 2 $100 bills in my pocket, and one is stolen, which one did I pay the grocery store with?

Do you guys understand how an exchange of value works?

He lost $100 and you don't even have to think about the rest of that bullshit statement

>Again, the question is just stupid.
t. Brainlet

You're the type of moron that would start calculating friction in an acceleration problem

he loses out on a potential sale retard. The value is $100

he loses 130 retards

If you steal 100$ from me and pay me 100$ for my shitty t-shirt, I lost like 1$.

It is folly to think that a merchant sells his products at the same price he bought them. Yea i know, author says not to overthink it, bla bla, but there is another way of thinking about this too.

it's a store, nigger, not an antique shop, they buy more goods before they run out.

>doubling down on retardation
The bitch literally stole $100. ITS FUCKING IRRELEVANT WHAT SHE BOUGHT AT THE STORE

OKAY.

STEAL 100 dollar, take 70 dollars worth of things from store. THATS 170 DOLLARS. GIVE MAN 100 DOLLAR BACK, 170-100=70. STORE OWNER THEN GIVES 30 DOLLARS. 70+30= 100

THE ANSWE RIS C

RETARD

1. $100 was stolen from the store
2. $100 was given back to the store
3. $70 of goods were given away for free
4. $30 was given away for free

-100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = -100

If you assume that she would have made the purchase anyway.

Btw I admit that I'm in the wrong here overthinking this.

holy fuck this is a good point. the answer is either a or b.

This woman niggers. If the items true worth is indeed $70 then yeah the store lost $100 of worth. Unless if the store is ripping people off with those bags (goods) and the niggress would be better doing arbitrage at a different store for the same goods at a lower price.

In a perfect world where the owner uses BTC and all transactions are registered the owner lost 200+ dollars when the thief is ordered by the judge to return all stolen goods

>she sells back the goods
>owner gets dress back
>she gives him back BTC
>owner gets back BTC

Attached: 1520988556813.gif (341x341, 332K)

are you guys just trolling? No one can actually be this stupid?

If someone steals from you you lost the total value of the thing stolen. Regardless of any further transactions. How is this that hard to understand?

A merchant wouldnt willingly buy his own good at market price, he loses out on the sale regardless of his total supply. I'm not even sure how you think him "buying more supply" negates the loss of stolen property? That is some retarded double think

Also, if you had $100 stolen and sold a shirt for $1, not only did you lose $100, but you sold a tshirt for below fair market value, and lost more because of it.

Jesus Christ Veeky Forums, you're all fucking imbeciles

Forgot link. youtu.be/TJyC77k8d54

no wrong answers of Veeky Forums so far. Guess Veeky Forums really is the most brainlet board.
kek

Attached: 1516570985205.jpg (299x168, 10K)

...

It's too ez

Attached: 6fa.jpg (600x602, 35K)

She stole $100.
Stole it. She was probably black too.

ok let me put this way for you maybe your retarded brain can understand it.

you have $1 million, someone stole it from you, then he came back and bought 1 million dollars from a shitcoin you just created with an infinite supply. how much money do you have now?

now to make the analogy more realistic, assume each single coin (unit) has a mining cost, but you can mine infinite amount ( you will never run out of coins to sell) and the mining rate exceeds the demand.

Actually in that scenario the owner lost 300 dollars because the market is bearish and the price of bitcoin crashes by 50% on that night.

she stole 100...then stole 70 dollars worth of goods... the answer is 170 you dumb, dumb, fucks.

*put it this way

*$1 million worth of a shitcoin

100 stolen bux
+70 in goods
+ 30 $ change

>then he came back and bought 1 million dollars from a shitcoin you just created with an infinite supply.

No wonder its so easy to scam this board

Who has $70 of that $100 now? Please share

no technically the store lost $130. i remember when i first learned to math too. idiot

Perhaps, but we're going to be (if not already) by far the wealthiest. Suck on that you fat kike.

- $100
- 5 minutes
- $70
- $30

he lost $200 and 5 minutes
he gained $100

so answer is F

>sold a shirt for $1
The shirt was sold for 100$

>If someone steals from you you lost the total value of the thing stolen. Regardless of any further transactions. How is this that hard to understand?
The theft takes 100$ from you, yes, the deal gives you 70$ back. This is just a logic puzzle, so it does not account for "lost opportunity" or anything like that what happens in real life, just transactions. It also assumes that the "70$ worth of goods" is merely something with 70$ with a price tag and we don't know its true value.

The conclusion is made with these assumptions, of course you can change the assumptions and get a different result.

Again, the intended answer for that question is 100$, that is not up to debate. You are jumping to conclusions here.

sci is nowhere near as funny or entertaining

Yeah good save.

None of the above we don’t know how much BTC the owner has can’t answer the question

you bery dahm fahk. store lost 100 dollars, then 70 dollars worth of goods. If she had paid for the goods the store would have 100 + 70. instead she stole the goods nd paid w stolen money so store has 70. answer is 100. its 100!!