Value or Lateral Thinking Lets See

mr hawaii wrote: 100$ when he cashes up his till he will be 100 short - the transaction of goods has no bearing as the 100$ the thief spent is the same as any legitimate transaction - the change given has no bearing - His stock will balance but his till will be short 100$

100% correct the shop keeper still made his profit or loss as normal on the goods

Now if the question was reversed

mr hawaii wrote: 100$ when he cashes up his till he will be 100 short - the transaction of goods has no bearing as the 100$ the thief spent is the same as any legitimate transaction - the change given has no bearing - His stock will balance but his till will be short 100$

Mr H, there could be more than one answer to the question (I think), as there is a mathematical truth and a theoretical truth.

How much money did the store owner lose - $ 100.00, but the stock he lost also has a monetary value of $ 70.00.

The phrasing of the problem/question is intended to be ambiguous (I think)

Bayern everything was fine until the thief walked in
What he left with is what the storekeeper lost

mydada wrote: Bayern everything was fine until the thief walked in
What he left with is what the storekeeper lost

You actually agreeing with my logic, we agree the shopkeeper did not get the $ 100.00 back, however the stock he lost had a monetary value of $ 70.00 - total "lost" is $ 170.00.

he tendered the 100 when presenting the goods

Assuming the gross profit is +/- 30% the shop keeper has lost $80, i.e. recovered $20 less the cost of goods and the $30 change.

In Money the shop keeper has lost $30 in straight money terms as well as $50 in stock value and recovered $20 in the transaction.

Forget the profit margin as we don't know exactly what it is and I don't think easy meant it that way.The thief stole 100 from the till so the till is already 100 short.Then the thief bought 70 worth of stock and the shopkeeper would have got that 70 from any other customer who bought the same stuff.So that's 170 plus he gave him 30 in change which comes to 200.So you would think he lost 200 but the thief only walked out the store with 70 worth of stock and 30 in his pocket.I would think that the storekeeper lost 100.

$100


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100 lets assume we went in took the hundred and went to another shop

easy put us out of our misery post the answer bud.....or is it a case of no right or wrong answer

Maybe the thief is the storekeeper himself and as he suffers from dementia he took the 100 to back a horse as he read ABC but when he got to the tatts he forgot why he was there in the first place He then remembered that his wife wanted to bring home a toaster from the store that he owns and as he runs a good business he paid for the toaster with the 100 and gave himself the 30 bucks change He had no money stolen from him as you can’t steal your own money or could you? Maybe the money that he has is the money from his overdraft which theoretically belongs to the bank In that case he stole 100 from himself and the bank so tbut he did have a 70 toaster and 30 bucks in cash He could return the toaster and get a refund and put the 70plus the 30 back in the register but he won’t because as I said he has dementia and obviously has no idea what transpired

I agree with Hoender......