Well Veeky Forums?

This question seems to have caused some controversy for the brainlets over at Veeky Forums. How smart is /sci??

Attached: howsmartareyou.jpg (480x480, 51K)

He lost 100$ subtract the profit margins of whatever she bought, unless she would have bought whatever she was going to buy anyway, in which case, just 100$.

$100

She got away with 30 smackers and 70 dillerydoos worth of free goods.

$100, doesn't matter what she buys

Took 100
To buy 70
And got 30
A capitalist would say that they stole 200
But we really dont know how much of the 100 was due to tax
And how much the owner purchased the goods from his supplier.

None of that matters. She stole a $100 bill directly from him, whether she comes back to purchase anything is irrelevant.

100 buckaroos

Takes $100

Gives $100 back

Gets $30

Lost $30 + value of purchased goods.

$100

Value of purchased goods= $70

hmm really makes you think

>Before the $100 is stolen
Store: $200 ($130 in the register, $70 in goods)
Thief: $0

>After the $100 is stolen
Store: $100 ($30 in register, $70 in goods)
Thief: $100 ($100 cash)

>After transaction
Store: $100 ($100 in register)
Thief: $100 ($30 cash, $70 in merchandise)

The store lost $100 in value.

rip. answers aren't nearly as entertaining as Veeky Forums

Oh, and while we're at it...

Attached: Too stupid to breed.jpg (620x372, 68K)

may 19
t.brainlet

Technically, shouldn't it be "cost to replace purchased goods" instead of "value of purchased goods". Because if the store replaces the goods for X dollars, then the store has the same goods as before but the exact monetary loss is $(30+X).

Lost 100$, get 100$, give back 30$. The that that it is the thief that is buying something is irrelevant. If we consider that selling something is equivalent to gain the amount of that thing (so not caring about marging), the amount lost is 100-100+30=30

It's July 16th, isn't it?

it's $100 right? she takes the $100, gets $70 worth of goods with the owner's money, and gets $30 back in change.

The goods are not worth the same for the store owner and the customer.

July 16th.

but the owner didn't gain anything by giving her the goods.

If a different person had bought the goods, he would have gained $70

Instead, he gave them away essentially for free (plus $30 of "change"). That's $70 of profit he's lost.

*cost of sale, not sale value. though, >but the owner didn't gain anything by giving her the goods.
^ this. the owner also lost the "potential gain".

this board is pure autismo, what do you expect?

either may 19 or july 16? not sure...

100
DO NOT OVERTHINK IT!

>loses $100
>gains $100 back but loses $70 in goods and gives (loses) $30 in change

He lost $100.

Insufficient data.

The $70 "worth" of goods might have cost them $60, or $30 wholesale.

>-$100
>+$100
>-$70
>-$30

>taking a picture of your screen
I'm smarter than you, I can assure you of that.

Can't be 19th or 18th because Albert says Bernard doesn't know. Meaning the month isn't May or June. Now that Bernard knows the month isn't May or June, he suddenly knows the answer. So it must be a unique day of July or August. So Bernard was either told 15, 16, or 17, whichever one of those it is, Bernard will be able to figure out the month. Albert then claims he figured it out, meaning it can't be August, because he would be left with either 15th or 17th. So July 16th is the answer.

kys retard

is the answer she was a nigger?

no because you still lost the profit

August 14

that's irrelevant

It'd be 100, since the original 100 dollars is now back in his hands, but she has 30 dollars and 70 in merch.

100$. Technically, a bit less, since he's making a profit from the sale.

C. Gained the 70$ item and kept 30$ of the 100$

profit loss is still loss

I never said it wasn't still loss. What would you rather lose, 70$ worth of merchandise (actually bought for 65$) or 70$?

$70, because I can mark up the merchandise to $80

impossible to solve

god damn fucking logic gurus

And what makes you think you are garanteed to sell it at this price in a reasonable time frame?

It's the exact same, that profit is lost and won't be able to make up for it unless that good is returned to you for free in a short time

Less than 100$, there's a profit margin on each item she bought.

You are assuming you were garanteed to sell the goods anyway.

-100 due stealing
Exchange of 70 bucks for goods

Which means he lost 30 bucks in dollars and value of goods which could have been sold for 70.
It's the same as if she would steal 30 bucks and goods.
Actual money value of loss is defined by tax, original price the store owner paid to obtain goods and price of the good multiplied by possibility of it getting sold

You mean the good that you just sold (actually got robbed of) to the niggress lady?

He is always supposed to receive the profit margin fucking commie

Albert: the month I've been told does not have a possible unique day that would make it possible for Bernard to know the birthday of Cheryl.
Bernard: the day I had been told was not enough to uniquely identify the month of Cheryl's birthday; the day is seen in multiple months. However, by the fact that Albert has just disclosed that the month he has been told does not uniquely correspond to the birthday, and further by the fact that he is sure that the month he has been told does not contain a date that could alone inform me of the actual date of Cheryl's birthday, I can now infer the date of Cheryl's birthday.
Albert: ah, now that I know that you know, I also know.

Answer is thus, July 16.

First part eliminates may and june. Albert would not be able to say that Bernard would not be able to know if Albert had been told either of these months-- Bernard could have been told 18 or 19, which are unique to those months, and Albert is a perfect logician and would not say that.

Bernard, understanding this, is now able to make sense of the number he has been told. If the day was 14, he would not know. So we, the observer, know that it must be 15, 16, or 17.

Albert now knows the birthday. This implies that he is not left to guess between 15 and 17 of August, because he has eliminated July 14th and now is only left with July 16th as a possibility.

And thus, after this third remark, it's possible for us, the observer, to know as well.

100

but not necessarily the same profit. also, he lost the POTENTIAL profit, not the profit itself

Very fun problem. Took me a while

Left as an exercise

It necessarily is the same profit as he was selling the good at that time

$100, the fact she bought something with it is irrelevant

>before theft
store: 500$ cash 100$ goods
thief: 0$ cash 0$ goods
>theft
store: 400$ cash 100$ goods
thief: 100$ cash 0$ goods
>after transaction before change
store: 500$ cash 30$ goods
thief: 0$ cash 70$ goods
>after change
store: 470$ cash 30$ goods
thief: 30$ cash 70$ goods

But the opportunity cost is $70,because that's what he would've made by selling it to someone else.

Wow so retarded it's $30. Take $100 from owner, hand it all back but he only keeps $70 and gives you $30, he lost $30
Anyway the question is also retarded because He won't make a $70 profit from goods he's selling for $70 so he actually lost more than $30

Yo man I've got some solid investment advice give me your email and I'll help you 10x your money.

he lost $30 worth of cash, and $70 worth of stuff.

Profit margin on most physical goods is around 1-3%

So a loss of 70 dollars worth of goods likely costs around 3500 dollars to make up. Plus the 100 dollars that will be short in the till.

oh my god shut the fuck up

>T.armchair cashier

The till is only short $30. You're just pretending to be retarded, aren't you?

>retards posting about profit margins
She STOLE $100. Whether the bitch comes back buy shit with $100, $200, or $10 doesn't fucking matter.

Ok, kids. Let's take it to next level.

Attached: 9008.jpg (506x285, 23K)

Attached: 50perCent.png (234x265, 88K)

unsolvable?

For brainlets, yes

0%
if you really want to blow minds, you should change c) 60% to c) 0%

Depends on the margin on the goods

But it's asking how much the owner lost, and the sale means the owner lost less in the scope of the problem

>What is opportunity cost

he would have made 70 bucks selling it to somebody else. he lost 70 bucks.

>Anyway the question is also retarded because He won't make a $70 profit from goods he's selling for $70 so he actually lost more than $30
Which means it's not the question that's retarded, it's your answer

>implying she would have bought the goods if she didn't steal the money

lmao he also gave back a dress from which he would get new 70 dollars.

B

Imagine 100 stolen from a register.
The till is down 100 dollars from what should be there.

Now she goes back, buys whatever and rings up at a different register. The till of that vregister will be even while the other is still down 100.

It doesn't even matter if it's the same register because the transaction will be zeroed out. As far as the business is concerned that 100 is still missing.

Since the goods were purchased with the stolen money, the store can report it as a loss provided they know it was purchased with stolen money.

Therefore the damages could exceed 3000 dollars depending on what was purchased.

Unlike you tards, I was a manager at a grocery store for several years and this kind of thing haopens frequently.

As an anecdote, someone purchased goods with a fake 100. Store policy dictate we accept it then call the authority. Fortunately, the suspect signed for a prescription at the pharmacy before the transaction so they got fucked.

he lost $30

Took $100
Give it all back
Then take $30

She also lost $70 worth of goods though so she lost $100

100$ + what the owner paid for his goods

use induction on n

You're wrong and can't do math kys