Okay that makes some sense.. now I wanna see you do it with debits and credits in a t-chart! LOL I kid! I kid!
right answer is actually $73 or $79 depending on how you calculate the $6. He gave the buyer $29 and had to give an addiitonal $29 to his neighbor
OMG, why are you guys so dense?! The answer is $100, stop thinking too deep and read my countless number of explanations. if you don't get it, then don't worry about it. I am done with explanations.
the mistake being made is that we're worrying too much about the change with the neighbor. Consider it a wash for now and just add up what the owner is paying out of pocket excluding the shoes. $29 to the scammer $29 to the neighbor + $15 or $21 = $73 or $79
the scammer has $29 in his pocket which comes directly out of the owner's pockets then you add in the fact he has to repay $29 to his neighbor
you forgot that the $21 was lost to the crook in the shoes. I think $100 for those who does understand the business world and a answer of 94 for those who don't.
You're not adding up everything correctly: lost $50 to the neighbor lost $15 in making the shoes lost $29 to scammer in change This is all correct. But you're forgetting that he initially gained $50 from neighbor in exchange for fake bill. That's important, because he did not pay back any of the change to the scammer out of his own money. He used the $50 from the neighbor to pay the scammer the change, leaving $21. When the neighbor asked for his $50 back, you can say that he's really only paying him $29 out of his own money (since he had $21 left over from the $50 initially received from the neighbor). So, his out of pocket expenses turns out to be $15 for the cost of the shoe, and $29 in paying back the neighbor. Thus, the answer: he lost $44. Now, you tack on an additional loss of $6 in lost revenue. There's no reason to do so. Remember: net loss = money spent - money earned There's no "money that might have been earned" term in that formula. Edit: Oh man, I drafted this response for nothing? Oh well.
you forgot that $21 to the neightbor and $21 to the crook in terms of the shoes. therefore $100 is the answer
Not gonna argue till you do that math again which is already outlined here many times. Run a + - chart.
actually the $21 i showed in my example is the good money from the neighbor, which you didn't account for.
Let me give it a try. Actually, the answer was in Wang Meng's article.....it is 44. The customer gave Mike the fake $50 dollar bill. The fake $50 dollar bill is exchanged with different denomination with the neighbor. $29 is given away as change to the customer + the pair of shoes at cost $15. Mike had to return a real $50 dollar bill to the neighbor and given back the fake $50 dollar bill. So end of day, Mike earned $6 from the shoes (as the customer did paid him $21). But he had to give $50 back to his neighbor to take back the fake $50 bill. So his real loss is 50 (the real $50) - the $6 profit he made out of the sales (21 - 15) = $44, or alternatively, the $29 he gave to the customer as change + $15, the cost of the pair of shoes, which is also $44. So the fake $50 is just a dummy from beginning to end. Well, if like what Uncle Mutombo said, if Mike can use that fake $50 for something else, then maybe he can end up gaining that $6 from the sales of the pair of shoes.
Dude +50 from neighbor -50 paid back =0 + 50 from customer - 50 it was a fake = 0 -29 to the customer -15 (or 21 if you see the fault in the question) = 44 (or 50)
Yeah most of us were just arguing its a stupid question in that it is not specific on if its a gross or net profit.
Here's a simple way to think about it: A customer walks in, purchases some shoes with LEGITIMATE MONEY*. You make $6. Your neighbor comes in and says that customer came into my store and got change for a $50 w/ a counterfeit bill. I hold you responsible. Pay me $50. 6 - 50 = -$44 *To further clarify: Imagine you walk over and get change w/ a fake $50. Then you get $50 legit money and give that back to the customer. Now start calculating the transaction. All the money involved is legitimate money. It doesn't matter whether you walk over to your neighbor w/ the counterfeit money to get change or the customer does. Ultimately that's $50 real money used in the transaction. Where it DOES matter is who's held responsible for the fraud. Unfortunately you did the favor of walking over to your neighbor to get the change so now he/she blames you.
i dont know how many of you are asians. cant believe such an easy question caused so much argument... just dont look at owner... the neighbor didnt lose anything... the customer get a pair of shoes and 29 dollars... that's what owner lost... how could you get the answer of 100 dollars...
The $50 he pays back to the neighbor includes the $29 (his own money). One thing I overlooked, which Casey, Hayesfan, and others have pointed out, is that you can judge net loss relative to $0 or relative to potential revenue after selling one shoe. If everything went down as it should, the selling of one shoe should result in a gain of $6. Instead, it resulted in a loss of $44. So, depending on how you interpret the question, he either lost $44 or he lost $50.
