If you don't know the answer then you are a Veeky Forums approved brainlet.
If you don't know the answer then you are a Veeky Forums approved brainlet
Wouldn't it just be 100 dollars - the profit margin of the goods, or am i a brainlet?
$130
-$100 for the bill
=$70 worth of money was swapped for merchandise
-$30 change
Veeky Forums is not for homeworks.
100 dollars
He gets robbed for $100
Then he completes an irrelevant transaction that doesn't have any relation to the robbery
This is just most monty hall crap. Take it to the extreme:
If the theif stole a $100 bill and bought $100 worth of merchandise, how much did the keeper lose? $100, not $200, he recovered the $100 but gave away $100 in it's stead.
It's a Facebook riddle not homework
He loses $30 in cash and $70 worth of whatever it is he sells.
...
This
>>/lgbt/
worse
lol.
probably like 5 bucks based on mark up
About $37 based on average wholesale markup
he lost nothing. as a kike goldmonger, he has right to nothing. every white American has the right to deprive Hebrews of their stolen goods
Fuck, I fell for it. I was sure it's $170. I guess I am a brainlet.
So hw takes 100$ from the owner, and he gives the owner 70$ of that same bill netting the money lost to 30$, however he then gives back 30$, so he loses 60$ total. Or am i a brainlet
How much did the merchant pay for the goods? not enough information.
Assuming he broke even it would be B0.2244 at current rates.
Oh nvm, total loss would be 30 dollars. Plus product price of 70 minus markup because he takes 100, gives back 100 and those cancel out, but then takes 30.
no you're definitely wrong both times retard.
something between $130 and $200
There are 2 questions so there are answers, not 'the answer'. Am I a brainless or just an Autist?
>Then he completes an irrelevant transaction that doesn't have any relation to the robbery
But the transaction is not necessarily irrelevant. The thief likely would not have made that transaction had he not stole the money in the first place. In THAT case, the owner would be out $100.
In THIS case, because the thief made a transaction that would not have occurred otherwise, the store owner technically got back $70 and lost $30.
In THAT case (the case of stealing the money and walking away) the owner would be out $100*
Look what the theif has net at the end of the story: $70 worth of merchandise he bought with the keeper's money, and the remaining $30 of the keeper's cash.
The shop didnt "get $70" back. $70 cash was switched for $70 merchandise.
The shop is down $100
Well you have to assume quite a bit. The store probably has a rough margin of 35-25% after most expenses. So realistically he could have lost roughly 65-75% of the product's shelf value putting him at a loss of anywhere between 72-82 dollars.
$60 in cash and $70 worth of inventory
You lose $100 but recover $70, leaving you at a loss of $30, but after handing out the change it becomes a $60 loss
This is phrased retardedly
he loses 100 dollars
then in the transaction really nothing changes because he lost 30$ of change and 70$ of goods
Oh yeah my bad lololo
That breaks down to the owner definitely losing 30 dollars as it was taken and not spent.
The owner probably purchased the 70 dollars of items for 50ish dollars and after rent, taxes, payroll etc it ended up costing him 42-52 to put on the shelf. (marked up to 70 so he has a profit) Thus he is only out the cost he spent on the item rather than the outright cash value on the price tag.
That facebook post has too many gramatical errors to form a solution.
-100-30+70= -60
He lost $60
>50ish
30-40ish not that anyone is particularly picky anyhow..