Jow Forums should be able to solve this

Are you guys really this dumb, or are you LARPing? She stole $100 then came in and bought shit like a normal customer. The owner is out $100. One could argue that the owner experiences a profit on the $100 in goods she bought, reducing his loss, but the problem does not indicate his gross margin on goods, so there is no way to calculate that.

Attached: smart wojak.jpg (710x594, 127K)

He lost his dignity for being cucked by a shitty theif

100 stolen + 70 worth of goods stolen + 30 change stolen.
Shows americans are dumb.

30$ cash + 70$ clothes - profit margin of the owner*70$ ~= 80$ give or take

200

Memewords
He lost 30$, we don't know the value of food

That depends on the profit margin of whatever she bought.
Would she have bought those items without the 100$ she stole? If she did, he lost 100$, if not, he lost 100-70+cost of what she bought.

steals $100 - down $100
gives him $100 - no loss
gives her $70 merchandise - down $70
gives her $30 - down $100

$100 are lost
the latter transaction is irrelevant

Steals 100 dollars. (-100)
Then she exchanges 70 of these stolen dollars for 70 dollars worth of stolen goods (-0)
Then the shopkeeper gives her 30 dollars (-30)
Total = -130

kek, this

$100 was the loss, everything after that is irrelevant to the problem as worded
>t. test taking expert

He doesn't sell his products at the same cost to him. So he is out a bit less than 100

Actual correct answer

the 100 was given back to the store pajeet

170 Assuming she would have made purchase even if she didn't steal

The correct answer is "it's impossible to know"
Literally everything else is incorrect.

But you need to account for inflation in the 5 minutes. So the $100 that she gave back was worth less.

Exactly. All you have to do is treat her second trip as if she was a different customer. He lost 100. Period.

kek, think again

E. $0

The $100 bill "stolen" was actually bait. The owner deliberately left a marked $100 out in the open so that if someone tries to use it to buy groceries they'd know it was their money. The owner then handed the theif a fake $20 and $10 dollar bill. The thief got outplayed.

Now you may ask, but what if the thief just left with the bill? Why would the owner take such a risk? Well as it turns out, the owner lives in a major city filled with niggers and is one of the few white people left. The police department is too afraid to prosecute criminals because they worry they might be seen as racist. This shit has been happening to the owner for years, and one day he decided enough is enough. He decided to take justice into his own hands.

Both have lost as that $100 should have been invested in one of the magic internet monies.

About tree fiddy

Theft of money + items purchased . The change is included within the original theft. Assuming the owner doesn't know the money used for the purchase is stolen it will be the theft alone on the books. But if the owner discovers the theft and has knowledge it will be 170 money and goods stolen.

still loss profit faggot

actually none of the above bc if the lady bought stuff with 70$ it means that the store bought it for less.. since we don't know how much the store makes from the item bought by the lady we can't actually figure out the actual loss

This thread is proof that most of you will never make it

>all these answers ITT that aren't $100

This explains why I spend all day scrolling past threads on Jow Forums. The people here are just complete idiots.

person A steals $100 from persona B
persona A gives $100 for $70 worth of goods (owned by person B)
person B gives persona A $70 worth of goods + $30 money
persona B has lost $100

100 because the stolen goods were purchased with the stolen money at the exact amount so the store lost $100 in stolen goods.

If he hadn't sold the thief the $70 worth of goods he could've made $70 profit. He lost $100 and $70 potential profit. 170 is the real answer.

tree fiddy

>the owner experiences a profit on the $100 in goods she bought, reducing his loss

it doesnt reduce anything, he would have made this profit on another client anyway

That might be true but consider that the thief didn't have to spend the stolen money at the same store so technically the $70 profit was still made.

no you brainlet

$100 stolen = -100
$100 given back = 0
$70 of good = -70
$30 of change = -100

he only lost 100

i was gonna say 100. but overthinking it what about -100 stolen, - 70 good - 30 back = 200?

$30 + cost of merchandise replacement

100 - the profit margin on the items bought

Nothing, the bitch was his wife.

cost of goods and opportunity cost (profit) is important here.

Owner lost:

$100 initially
$100 is returned but now the cost of goods is lost
$30 is lost
Opportunity (profit) is lost

Answer is $30 + cost of goods + potential profits

Assuming for $0 cost of goods and pure profit (let’s say owner is a prostitute and goods are sex)

$100 lost initially
$100 is given back
$70 in profit is lost
$30 is lost

$100

It’s a shoddy question.

$100. If it took you longer than 10 seconds crypto might not be for you.

I solved it in 5 seconds

t.
1/3 ETH
1/3 BTC
1/3 LINK

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

Attached: 1562648796706.jpg (635x542, 15K)

You don't know how much the store makes on the sale because it's not relevant to the problem. She stole $100, he lost $100. Doesn't matter who comes back later and buys whatever.

he lost zero. cops came and shot the sheeboon pavement ape

Attached: 22389373.jpg (240x160, 8K)

-100+100-70-30= -100

Attached: 09d50feaab4e1c8f1d32216cc02f12f3-imagejpeg.jpg (814x773, 32K)

32.3 LINK

Retard should've asked permission from the owner to steal his money.