He first loses 100, then he gives her £70 worth of booze bought with his own money, then gives her 30. He has lost 200.Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle bob
Printable View
He first loses 100, then he gives her £70 worth of booze bought with his own money, then gives her 30. He has lost 200.Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle bob
Can't believe that this is still causing confusion.
:facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mansfield
She gives him the £100 back when buying the booze so hes lost £100Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mansfield
"She buys 70 worth of booze"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mansfield
£100
This thread makes you realise why a lot of people get ripped off.:biggrin:
I read somewhere the other day that Nottingham Forest scored 2 goal and conceded 2 goals...How many did they win by
They either drew 2-2, lost 0-2 or 0-4, depending on if the 2 scored and 2 conceded were one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluethrough
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
Wrong
For those saying £30 + the wholesale value of the booze, what about taking into account the profit made on the booze had the owner been able to sell them from non-stolen money? Hasn't that profit also been stolen?
So £30 + profit margin (£70 - wholesale value of the booze) + wholesale value of the booze = £100.
This thread :facepalm:
Taking it on face value...already been done this comment...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
You can't, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dembethewarrior
Say I had something that cost me x but was worth y. That gets stolen. Do I lose out on the cost or the value?
£100 is stolen. Everything that happens after that is a fair exchange and irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle bob
Shopkeeper loses £100, which is the amount stolen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mansfield
You have to look a the purchase of booze as if it was by another customer.
I went to a place where I've never been. Did I ever go there?
Did the lady also spend 5p on a bag or did she take her own?
Either way, the owner isn't aware that the £100 was stolen in the first place so when the till is cashed up at the end of the day it will only be £30 short.
:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mansfield
Answer To Stolen Money Riddle
The best answer from the choices is the owner lost $100. The $100 bill that was stolen was then given back to the owner. What the owner loses is the $70 worth of goods and the $30 in change, which makes for a total of $70 + $30 = $100. The owner has lost $100.
Technically, the owner lost $30 plus the value, V, of the $70 of goods. Since stores typically sell goods at a markup, the value may be less than $70. But in the case of a loss leader, the owner may have lost more than $70.
Another strategy to solve the problem is to break it down into two stores.
Story A
A guy walks into a store and steals a $100 bill from the register without the owner’s knowledge.
How much money did the owner lose? Clearly the answer is $100. The owner is a net -100.
Story B
He buys $70 worth of goods using a $100 bill and the owner gives $30 in change.
How much money did the owner lose? The owner did not lose any money, this is a routine transaction! If the goods are valued at V, the owner is a net +100 – V – 30 = 70 – V.
The story in the riddle is the sum of the two stories. This means the owner’s position is the sum of the position in those two stories. The owner is a net -100 + (70 – V) = -30 – V. That is, the owner lost $30 plus the value of the goods. If the goods are valued at $70, then the owner lost $100.
Misconceptions
Many people think the answer is 200 dollars. It seems like the owner had $100 stolen, and then had another $100 stolen in the second story. But remember the thief also paid using the $100 bill, so the owner actually gets back $100. The owner’s loss is $100.
Some people think $130 because the owner lost a $100 bill and then gave $30 in change. But remember the owner also received a $100 bill, and also gave away $70 in goods. Adding up all the transactions leads to the owner losing $100.
The other incorrect responses are misunderstandings of a similar sort where people are not sure which numbers to add or subtract, or they are not taking into account all parts of the story.
It may help to view the two parts as separate stories and then add them up. The fact the thief paid with the stolen $100 bill seems to be another source of confusion. It does not matter the $100 was stolen; it only matters that the bill was genuine currency.
And there will be £70 of booze missing from the shelves. And the till roll will show a £70 sale. So the owner will be aware s/he is £100 out of pocket!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bloop
Ah but what if it wasn’t the shop owner who sold the goods (even though he has to take a wage) and was an employee. The wasted time over a rogue transaction has to be taken into account, time that has been paid in wages by the employer. Also if it was an electric till etc etc etc 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂