My potential employer requires me to get this correct.
Can Veeky Forums help me solve this?
My potential employer requires me to get this correct.
Can Veeky Forums help me solve this?
He was robbed of 100
70 worth groceries
30 dollars back
Thanks just bought 100K
100 dollar obviously
all his dignity
It depends on what margins the store has on the product she bought
How retarded are you its 100 dollars they even fucking say how much is stolen
100$ stolen and then additionally 7¤$
The change she is getting back is from the 100$ being split for change
$170. The lady stole $100 and $70 worth of product. The $30 was already calculated in the initial $100.
$70 + $100 - $30 = $140
Wtf is going on with my keyboard ayy lmao
The rest ITT should leave crypto forever
No it’s $100 brainlet.
>it’s another Veeky Forums is retarded episode
30 and the value of the groceries (if it's the owner it didnt cost him 70 or he wouldnt be selling it for 70)
so the correct answer would be 70
E. 170. She took 100 from the register and bought $70 worth of stuff with his own money. The $30 part is meant to trick you up; that's just change she already stole.
she didn't stole 70$ worth of product you moron. she paid for it.
if she paid for it with the money she stole doesn't matter at all.
she only stole 100 dollars, not more. so the owner only lost 100$. holy shit anons how dense are you
Bill + groceries = 170
She walks away with $100 worth of items/cash. If you come to any other conclusion, off yourself.
loll are you crazy?
-100 - 70 + 100 - 30 = 170?
go back on plebbit
the right answer is 70 because he had margin on the products
It's $100 you dumb cunt farts.. The Original 100 was his he gets that back then gives $30 cash + $70 in groceries
She stole 100.
Gave 100 back.
Walked away with 70+30.
No wonder you guys suck at trading
Listen here you fucking basement cunts. DONT OVER THINK THIS.
$100 because in the end the lady ends up with $70 worth of goods and $30. The shop keeper is down $100.
I refuse to believe my brothers are this stupid.
>woman takes $100
>woman gives back $100
>woman gets $70 in food and $30 in change
>therefore, woman stole $100
>$100 in cash
>switches $70 in cash to $70 in groceries
The owner lost $30 in cash and $70 in groceries.
Now we can get autistic about $70 in groceries not equaling to $70 in cash but I'm just gonna go ahead and lock answer C.
The irony is that the presence of this sentence causes them to overthink it.
This thread is proof that if you let Veeky Forums give you any advice on crypto and buy the 'hot stuff' like banyan network, jibrel or chainlink as Veeky Forums recommends you to do, you can only blame your self in the end for staying poor, jhaha.
I cannot tell if the rest of you faggots are sarcastic or are we flooded by brainlets
For my own peace of mind I'm going to assume that anyone not answering $100 (with a possible reduction for the profit margin on the groceries) is LARPing. I honestly cannot believe the rest of you are that stupid. Ad I do mean 'cannot'. I literally cannot maintain a view of the world as a rational place if I accept that you are being serious.
1. Lady steals 100:
Owner = - 100
Lady = + 100
2. Lady hands back 100 note to acquire goodw
Owner = 0
Lady = 0
3. Owner hands over goods + change
Owner = - 70 - 30 = - 100
Lady = +70 + 30 = +100
Owner lost $100
My bad it's 100
Give back for 70 + 30
Only correct answer in this thread.
THIS FUCKING THREAD HAHAHAHA
IF YOU ACTUALLY THINK ITS $170 WHY ARE YOU HERE
Good point about actual losses on the groceries due to mark-up, but let's not get too autistic here
-100 +100 -70 -30 =100
I think most are larping too
nvm she only stole the 100$ bill, since she otherwise paid for the food.
lmfao, great post
litraly this, you can also think of it by changing up the order ie: she takes 100$ she then gives back 70$ (in the form of a sale) and gets 70$ worth of goods (That she keeps) making the total look like this
-70(the goods lost)
-30(the change returned)
The money that a thief has at the start of the transaction is 0$
for simplicity (without loss of generality (wlog))
Then we assume the amount of money that cashier has at the start plus stock is 100$+70$=170$
Now here comes to tricky bit we have the thief stealing some money, 100$
to be precise, then we now have
Now we say that the thief buys 70$
worth of food, this is a zero sum transaction i.e. the transaction is balanced both ways so we have
70$−70$(food sold)+70$(money used to purchase food)=70$
Now that is what we have in left with the cashier.
Now compare with the start
Is what the cashier is down by.
Now the thief has
So this matches what the cashier is down by.
He also lost the margin he could make selling the goods to someone else you dumb fuck
And nothing tells you that there is a 30$ margin on those products
Dont' tell me what to do
She paid $70 and he gave her $30. He only ended up losing $30 out of the register and not $100. You all are stupid.
LINK 1000 EOY
why is everybody here so braindead
Dude....the stolen goods she took are worth $70, so $70+$30=$100 lmao.
he lost goods worth 70$, it’s 100$ you brainlet
You counted the $30 twice, the owner lost a total of $170
she stole 100,
basically traded the 100 for 70 worth of food and the 30 in change from the 100 she used.
store lost $100.
So say you have 200 in cash and 200 with of product. 100 is taken from cash. Then 70 worth of food. But you gain the 100 back but loose 30 in change. So you loose 100
SHE STOLE 100
>Listen here you fucking basement cunts. DONT OVER THINK THIS.
Seriously there is ZERO MATH involved. What the fuck is wrong with you people
you guys are fucking retarded its $100
when she buys $70 worth of groceries she exchanges $70 she stole for $70 worth of groceries.
the clerk receives the $70 she stole BACK
female steals 100$ from cler
F +100, C - 100
female buys 70$ worth of shit with 100$ bill
F -$100, + 70$, C +$70, - 70$
clerk gives back 30$ change
F +30, C - 30
F = + 100 - 100 + 70 + 30 = +100
C = - 100 + 100 - 70 - 30 = -100
M8, why are you giving answer to a fucking stupid ape whom cant think for itself?
Even wost, nobody post his address to beg for coin, or post (really) shitty bulshit to turn him(or her, don't be sexist user) down!
Plus, the real ans34 is 100/(70-30)=$25
Leave my board freaking normies !
she stole $100. Then gave back $70 of those dollars in exchange for $70 worth of food.
so she essentially stole $30 + $70 worth of food -= $100
Well it depends on the worth of goods he was selling.. and the price he bought it for and what he sold it for.
It depends on the profit the store made on the products
Its not more then $100, but probably a bit less
dumb ass company tell them you resign
Steals $100. +100$
Buys $70 worth of goods, gives $100 to owner. -$30
Owners gives her back $30. +$30
100-30+30 = 100.
It's a trick question. We don't know if she used the 100 she stole or her own 100 to buy the goods so you can't get the answer.
No wonder link gets unironically shilled on this board, y'all are retarded
Jesus fucking christ biz... OK again for retards: IMAGINE SHE DIDN'T STEAL THE $ 100.. Walks into the shop, buys her groceries, pays with her own money. How much did the shop owner lose? EXACTLY.
It literally doesn't matter because she only stole a $100 bill, which, guess what, is worth fucking $100. You recognize the answer is $100 yet you can't even understand there's nothing more to it, you probably copied what everybody's been seeing in this thread for a while and I bet you didn't even get the answer right the first time before skimming through it.
Kill yourself, brainlet.
Technically it's probably less than $100 since he will be making a profit from the sale. The goods he sold are worth less to him than the $70 he got back.
You literally don't even have to consider the transaction.
She stole $100, that is where it ends. It doesn't matter where the money for the transaction came from as long as it was executed correctly.
This is the first correct answer in this thread. Well done user.
Was the owner a pajeet? If so well done lady
Imagine a different scenario where the lady pays for $100 worth of groceries with false money
Did the company lose $100 or only the value of the groceries
Check mate dipshit
True but grocery store margins are incredibly thin. It would be like .70 less lossaybe if you consider margins
No it doesn't matter who he sold it to
You cannot count the margin in favor of the thief because that margin was already calculated into the selling price. If I buy $10 of goods, mark it up to $20, then have to throw the goods in the garbage, I'm not out $10, I'm out $20 fucking dollars.
wow watch at those stinky linkies who think she stole 100+ bucks
Just say 100$, he specifically said don't overthink it, try to follow instructions and don't listen to autists on here geeez....
DO NOT OVERTHINK IT!!!
100 $ is what she stole, so 100$ is what is lost.
the lady came out with
70$ worth of goods and 30$ in change
seriously how fucking retarded are you brainlets
Bout tree fitty
the funniest shit is that it literally says
do not over think it
DO NOT OVER THINK IT
wannabe smartassL "hurr durr but muh margins"
this is why you retards dont deserve a job and buy high and sell low
>Not calculating margins and clearly showing critical thinking is not your thing
holy shit every body is a brainlet here lol
owner starts at 0 losses
then -100 because she stole
then when she pays for the item she gives 100 so they cancel out
then he gives her 30 so it's -30
Average IQ bruv reporting in. Life is an MMO and we don't all get high level INT okay?
>you need to include the price of the item as a loss too
no. the owner already lost on that item when he bought it from the manufacturer. we don't know how much he paid but we can assume it's less than 70. he can't lose that amount "again" because it was stolen.
how did he lose 170 if the chick gave him the 100 back and bought 70 and got 30 change back? That seems to be 100 not 170
if its more than 25x theyre a gambling degnerate and need to get off bitmex
They even tell you to not overthink