Saw this funny article by Wang Meng from Titan Sports. So how many of you got the correct answer? And are the Rockets players that dumb and stupid ??? HAHAHA !!!
the answer (out of pocket for the store owner) is $44 29 (how much change he gave the punk out of $50) + 15 (wholesale cost for the shoe) = $44 the true cost is actually $44 + 6 (lost opportunity cost of the $6 profit from a legit sale) = $50. i suspect yao thinks answer 1 is the correct answer but it's pretty simple. the 50 he gave and got from his neighbor cancel each other out. all that's left is the 50 he unwisely accepted you can also do the math 50 (amount he gave to the customer) - 6 (his markup) = 44. not sure what the minus 66 is
hmm the answer could also just be the $29 he gave to the punk. if you're talking about just the amount less cash he had from that morning (although at some point the lost cost of the shoe needs to be figured it could be done later) the article doesn't say what the other players answered... it's possible those dudes (battier for example) gave answers that weren't exactly INCORRECT so much as answering a different thing from what yao was asking
guys, we've done this a billion times already. here is how it works: Before the scam, the owner has a pair of shoes that cost him $15, and $50 cash. After the scam, the owner does not have the pair of shoes, nor the $50 cash. So how much did he lose?
why did we all got stuck on this simple math? At the end of the day the owner lost $100 dollars The theft earn $21 shoe plus $29 the change = $50 = owner lost $15 in cost of goods sold and opportunity for profit + $6 and then out of pocket change of $29. Owner turn around and gave a fresh $50 dollars bill to his neighbor.
wrong. the owner did lose $50 to the scammer for $21 shoe plus $29 change. but you forgot that the owner has to repay the fake $50 to his neighbor. at the end of the day the owner is looking at a fake $50 in his hand and lost of $21 plus his change of to the scam of $29.
I think you need to do this another billion times. before the scam the owner has a shoe $15 and profit margin of $6, and $50 cash. before the scam the scammer have a fake $50 bill before the scam the neighbor has a real $50 bill. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- after the scam, the neightbor has a real $50 bill (store owner pay him back) after the scam, the scammer has a $21 show plus $29 in change = $50 (both of them didn't lose anything, except scammer got real $50 instead of fake $50) after the scam the store owner has a fake $50 bill, lost $21 worth of shoe, and lost $29 change to the scammer. Think now. if the neighbor and scammer didn't lose anything at the end of the day, then who did? owner is staring at a fake $50, which he can't use. On top of a $21 shoe plus his own money for $29 change.
You're double counting some of those figures, I think. - owner loses $15 (cost of shoe) - owner gains $50 (from neighbor, in exchange for fake $50) - owner loses $29 (change for the customer) - owner loses $50 (to pay back neighbor) That's it. Add it all up, and the net result is he lost $44.
No, one more time is good enough for me. i was wrong to forget about the $21 that the owner kept. You are wrong to include the $6 in the cost of the owner. Before the scam, the crook has a fake $50 note, the owner had $50 and a pair of shoes that cost him $15 to make, and the neighbor had $50. After the scam, the crrok has $29 and a pair of shoes, the owner had $21 and a $50 fake note, and the neighbor had $50. The only exchange took place between the crook and the owner, and what the crook now has is what the owner lost. The crook now has a pair of shoes that would cost $15 to make and $29. Therefore the owner lost $44. You cannot include the potential profit of the shoes as part of the owner's loss. The owner could have wanted to make a million bucks of profit, but it wouldn't count because it never materialized.
