Wow, a five page discussion on a question they give to 10 year old girls in China? No wonder China is becoming the superpower of the world now.... Just think of it this way: Owner loses $50 to neighbour since he has to give him a real $50 bill Owner gains $6 from the shoe transaction (IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE $50 BILL FROM THE SALE IS FAKE OR NOT) therefore net loss = $44
I double counted the first time this problem came out. If you base it on what the thief has, then it's pretty simple how much the owner lost (44) or could have lost (50 with the profit included). I would go with the first answer because if the counterfeiter outright stole the shoes, many would say the owner lost 15 bucks.
i think it could be simple. The money went out substract the money went in is the money lost. 15+50-21=44
What a bunch of idiots. There ain't no tell'n how much dude lost at the end of the day. Depends on how many shoes he sold and how many other fake bills he changed.
You're all duped. This is nothing more than an attempt at keeping all the negative thread starters busy!
the answer might be right, but your logic was wrong. The neighbor did not earn or lose anything in this fake transaction. The customer got a pair of shoes for free and 29 bucks change, which was actully the Mike's entire loss. So, if take the pontential profit into count, entire loss would be 21+29=50 if just ignore (Or say Mike gives up) the pontential profit (6 bucks), it would be 15+29+44. By the way, i am a chinese and just taking my first semester of doctoral study in the United States. This is my first post here.
wrong, he woudn't have the 50 dollar bill if the guy didn't take way the shoes. you can have the shoes and have the 50 dollar at the same time.
This is such an easy math problem. I can't believe all the Rockets players can't even solve it! Are they that dumb?
I can not agree with you. There is only one answer: 44. Assume this is a good trade, Mike will make $6. That is not the case. Then this is a fake trade. Loss is the only answer. You lost what you had not your potential earning. For example: you bought a stock for $1000, it went up to $3000, then went bankrupted. Your loss is $1000, do not tell me $3000. You will get into trouble if you tell IRS so. Welcome to U.S.A, my dear Rookie.
WHY that difficult to understand ?? There is no opportunity cost $6. That profit $6 was earned already when the customer paid Mike for the shoes for $21 with the fake 50 dollar bill. The customer also got the changes for $29. So the fake $50 dollar bill was just changing hands from the customer to Mike to the neighbor and then back into the hand of Mike. So at the end of the day: The neighbor: no loss. The customer: he cheated and got $29 plus a pair of shoes priced at $21 with his fake $50 dollar bill. Mike lost 50 - 50 - 15 - 29 = $44, and eventually hold on to a fake 50 dollar bill with no value. (Of course, as I said, if Mike can use the fake 50 dollar bill somewhere else, then it's another story.)
u counted the 15$ twice... total losses 65 (50 paid back 15 for shoe production) total gains 6 (profit off shoes sold for 21) net loss = 59
My logic goes: shoe cost = $15; changes from $50 = 50-(15+6)= 29. Mike gave it all away = 15 + 29 = $44 It's funny how a simple question can generate so many ways of looking at it.
It's YOU that counted the $15 twice..... When you said gain of $6, the $15, i.e. the cost of the shoes had been accounted for, which is the price of the shoes ($21) minus the cost of the shoes ($15). Physically, Mike did not lose the shoes, which is sold at $21, and he made a profit of $6 out of the sales. So his total loss was the $50 he paid to his neighbor - the $6 he earned from the deal which is $44.
my logic is not wrong. I didn't say anything about the neighbour. Your english is wrong And the answer is only $44, since the owner bought the shoes at $15, not $21. The question is asking about the owner's actual (realized) losses, not any potential losses.
I agree that many who got the answer right arrived at it via a flawed logic e.g. pryuen arrived at the answer but his logic got me scratching my head. Also this is not just an Accounting (in-flow and out) exercise, it is also a Maths issue (equation), Logic as well as statistics. Such a problem is easily solved by children and teenagers than adults - whether it be Chinese, German, Nigerian or American. In all an interesting discourse, and a healthy exercise.
Yallmean, Oh before I forget, please asses my logic. Just follow the numbers, and focus on them alone. Simplified..... *(-$15) + **(+$50) + ***(-$29) + ****(-$50) :: -$15 + $50 - $29 - $50 = -$44 P.S. The best logic for me the is the guy who said just forget the neighbor (i.e. exclude him from the equation). Note: * = Cost of purchase ** = "Legal" tender (Mike's) *** = Change (for/to Mike) **** = Money returned (to neighbor)
