Math question....tricky or not? We are fighting over the answer....s

[EmilyRain]

My niece asked this question and it has everybody disagreeing and arguing over the correct answer. Who here knows?

If a woman walks into the store and steals 100 dollars from the cash register and then goes on to get 70$ worth of things from the store and gives the cashier the stolen 100 dollar bill and then gets 30$ back in change. What is the Stores total loss ?

[PeterL22]

The obvious answer is $200 - the stolen 100 + change 30 + goods retailing at 70.
But I expect the wholesale cost of goods was only say $20 - so that would reduce it a bit!

[WalterB]

The lady give the $100 back, so that negates the theft. However, she still has the $70 in goods pus the $30 change. Total loss? $100.

And, tell your niece to stop stealing stuff.

[CGYMike]

Net loss $200.00 (the first 100.00 although recovered was still stolen)..total actual loss $100.00 (money recovered but idiot cashier gives out another 70.00 in goods plus change...what a moron). The real question here is why hasn't anyone called the police !!!!!

[mrjosh85]

Alright, we do the math in terms of the stores losses/gains:
The woman takes $100 (-100)
The woman takes $70 worth of items (-70)
The woman gives $100 back (+100)
The woman receives $30 thats not hers (-30)

So x = -100 + -70 + 100 + - 30
= - 70 - 30 = - 100

Therefore, the store loses $100, $30 in cash and $70 worth of merchandise.

[WalterB]

You can't lose something if it's given back. If I drop a $100 bill and somebody finds it and gives it back to me, my net loss is $0 and my actual loss is $0. Only thing left is the $70 in food and the $30 in change.

[stickyvicky]

It wasn't given back. There is a difference between spending it and giving it back.

The stolen $100 is still a loss. If she left and never came back, and someone else came in and spent $100 would you say the previous $100 was never stolen? You have to look at them as independent items.

The fact that she spent the money there in the store is neither a gain or a loss. It's irrelevant. She purchased using stolen money; but it doesn't matter to the store if it was stolen or withdrawn from the bank, it's a normal regular every day sale. The store doesn't care where the money came from. It's a normal every day sale.

So the only loss really, is the $100 that she stole in the first place.

[CGYMike]

aakkkkkkk....I want a do-over !!! My first explanation is full of holes but I was on the right track.

Vicky nailed it on the head. The two incidents are independent transactions.

We wasted a half hour at work this morning arguing this scenario...I love it when we get no work done :)

....oh and Walt..get some new pants...your pocket has a hole in it !!

[EmilyRain]

aakkkkkkk....I want a do-over !!! My first explanation is full of holes but I was on the right track.

Vicky nailed it on the head. The two incidents are independent transactions.

We wasted a half hour at work this morning arguing this scenario...I love it when we get no work done :)

....oh and Walt..get some new pants...your pocket has a hole in it !!

We have been arguing over this question for 2 days now! I said the total loss was 200$
the original 100$ stolen..... 70$ in merch.... and 30$ in change. total loss being 200$ but now, I question the 30$ in change. I am confused ! I'm calling my sons humanities math teacher today and asking him!

[WalterB]

It wasn't given back. There is a difference between spending it and giving it back.

The stolen $100 is still a loss. If she left and never came back, and someone else came in and spent $100 would you say the previous $100 was never stolen? You have to look at them as independent items.

The fact that she spent the money there in the store is neither a gain or a loss. It's irrelevant. She purchased using stolen money; but it doesn't matter to the store if it was stolen or withdrawn from the bank, it's a normal regular every day sale. The store doesn't care where the money came from. It's a normal every day sale.

So the only loss really, is the $100 that she stole in the first place.

But, it was given back. She gave it back when she paid for the goods. And, it's not irrelevant. She paid for (now stolen) goods with stolen money. It does make a difference to the store. If the product was paid for with money from the bank, then it's not stolen, is it? And the two actions are tied together. The money stolen in the first place is returned in the second place. That is what ties them together. So, the now returned money is no longer stolen, but the goods and the change are. One stolen commodity was simply exchanged for another.

So, while we might argue the mechanics all day long, (most of us) agree that the loss is $100.

And, Mike, that hole is there for a reason. You ever tried rubbing one out in the store over the girl standing by the eggs without a hole in your pocket?

[PeterL22]

It wasn't given back. There is a difference between spending it and giving it back.

The stolen $100 is still a loss. If she left and never came back, and someone else came in and spent $100 would you say the previous $100 was never stolen? You have to look at them as independent items.

The fact that she spent the money there in the store is neither a gain or a loss. It's irrelevant. She purchased using stolen money; but it doesn't matter to the store if it was stolen or withdrawn from the bank, it's a normal regular every day sale. The store doesn't care where the money came from. It's a normal every day sale.

So the only loss really, is the $100 that she stole in the first place.

But, it was given back. She gave it back when she paid for the goods. And, it's not irrelevant. She paid for (now stolen) goods with stolen money. It does make a difference to the store. If the product was paid for with money from the bank, then it's not stolen, is it? And the two actions are tied together. The money stolen in the first place is returned in the second place. That is what ties them together. So, the now returned money is no longer stolen, but the goods and the change are. One stolen commodity was simply exchanged for another.

So, while we might argue the mechanics all day long, (most of us) agree that the loss is $100.

And, Mike, that hole is there for a reason. You ever tried rubbing one out in the store over the girl standing by the eggs without a hole in your pocket?

I accept that argument Walter - looking at it the OTHER way round - the woman has a net gain of the goods and the change - which, as you rightly say, adds up to $100.
She may also benefit from a stay in jail as well!

[mrjosh85]

Walt and Ms. Vette are both right.

Let's break the story down:
A woman walks into the store and steals 100 dollars from the cash register
Store: -100
Woman: +100

She then goes on to get 70$ worth of things from the store
Store: -170
Woman: +170

She gives the cashier the stolen 100 dollar bill
Store: -70 (recouping its earlier cash loss)
Woman: +70

She then gets 30$ back in change.
Store: -70 + -30 = -100
Woman: 70 + 30= 100

What did the woman get out of the event?
She left with $30 of the store's money, and $70 worth of merchandise.

What did the store lose in the event?
They lost $100, had the $100 returned, but accidentally gave back $30 of stolen money. Additionally, the woman left with $70 worth of merchandise that was never paid for.
Ms. Vette is right in terms of accounting: at the end of the night, the drawer will be short $100, because the merchandise was never actually paid for (though it was rung in), and the change was given out by mistake. The $100 would be double counted in the drawer.

[stickyvicky]

It all comes to the same in the end, it's just how you work it out in your head.... lol...

[CGYMike]

Now why on earth didn't the woman just steal $70.00 worth of shit and then just ask the cashier for $30.00 for cab fare??? Would have saved us all a hell of a lot of time, don't ya think??

And Walt, for gawd sakes get a new hobby !!!

[EmilyRain]

Now why on earth didn't the woman just steal $70.00 worth of shit and then just ask the cashier for $30.00 for cab fare??? Would have saved us all a hell of a lot of time, don't ya think??

And Walt, for gawd sakes get a new hobby !!!

Right!!!!

[PeterL22]

It all comes to the same in the end, it's just how you work it out in your head.... lol...

And I bet the store wrote it off against tax anyway - anybody want to work out how much the Tax people have lost???