Anitatunde:


Correct.

Kindly drop your details for 2gb worth of data any network

0803 694 4599
MTN ...

pansophist:
.

100usd.

Imagine that the thief went away with the 100usd and didn't buy anything, and another customer performed the transactions the thief would have done, would it now mean that the store lost 200e?

OF course not. The transaction made by the thief was a legitimate transaction. The 100 was not fake. So the real loss here is 100

wrong sir the total amount initially lost was $100 now he uses the same amount to purchase goods worth $70 making it $170 + $30 change received which equals $200 total amount lost

We where asked how much did the store lose not the owner read and understand the context of the question the total amount lost in that store is $200 not $100 because goods bought by the thief are included too plus the change.

Theweekend:
wrong sir the total amount initially lost was $100 now he uses the same amount to purchase goods worth $70 making it $170 + $30 change received which equals $200 total amount lost

Wrong calculation. Ok see it this way.

What the shopkeeper truly lost was the 70$ worth of goods, and the 30$ balance. The 100$ that was first stolen have returned back to the shopkeeper.

The shopkeeper will only loose 200$ if the 100$ the thief paid with was fake. But it isn't, the transaction was legit. This shit is not difficult.

pansophist:


Wrong calculation. Ok see it this way.

What the shopkeeper truly lost was the 70$ worth of goods, and the 30$ balance. The 100$ that was first stolen have returned back to the shopkeeper.

The shopkeeper will only loose 200$ if the 100$ the thief paid with was fake. But it isn't, the transaction was legit. This shit is not difficult.

yes i agree with u he did legit transaction but if u calculate all the goods in dat store trust me $200 will be missing after balancing ur account

lol such an interesting thread i enjoyed the comments.

@Op, you should get a reimbursement from the supposed winner.

The question was made to look straightforward, but it isn't with a deceptive grammatical emphasis (colour) on the numbers just as in a typical mathematical or accounting exam setting.

But here is the twist:

The question was how much money was lost, not how much money and goods were lost.

I’ll explain further...

I am in the IT world but I know that money and goods are not the same in accounting, and will never get recorded in the same book. One is constant while the other isn't.

$1 will always be $1, but the value of goods may vary due to many factors, like bulk purchases, low sales, etc.

For instance, you can't give $1 to get $2, but you can get 3 goods for the price of one and the stock account will still balance (applying the discount code).

So while $100 is missing from the sales book, which might be because of any other reason, even damage, the goods didn't get missing. It was sold. It wasn't a loss.

However, another piece of money ($30) from the same cash register was taken out at the same time, making the total money (loss) taken out between the “thief and the cashier” during that transaction, that day, a total of $130. We can hypothetically say that the cashier gave $130 to the thief (assuming he didn't steal it) but didn't give the goods for free.

Think about it, the answer couldn't have been that easy. Everyone will quickly say $100 without a doubt. There definitely must be a twist.

Interesting

Indeed