No, I agree that the "correct" answer is 44. I am trying to show that this is not a math problem at all but a problem meant to confuse and it is a poor one at that.
He does not manufacture the shoes he manufactures a sale which is worth money and that is proved by retail markup. If retailers did not provide a service (and manufacturing is also a service) people would not pay extra for it. This is flawed logic because that is from my example saying that my crafstman could just make another widget tommorow and make up the 70 dollars. Its seems we totally agree that the answer could be 44 or 50 based on the question but your arguments against 50 are based on you not considering retail a service. It is a service and the fact that the store can sell more shoes or they did not manufacture them is beside the point that service was rendered and no compensation was given.
Hey man.....what do you mean he did not receive real money of $21 from the customer? When the customer paid Mike a $50 dollar bill for the pair of shoes, in order to complete the transaction and for the customer to leave the shop, he had to be given a change of $29, right? WHY? It was because the pair of shoes was prized at $21, at cost of $15.....with a profit of $6. It just happened Mike did not have sufficient change for the customer. So he went to his neighbor and his neighbor gave Mike with $50 of different denomination in exchange of the 50 dollar bill, right? So after the cheater left the shop, what had Mike in his hand? $21 in different denomination, representing the cost of the pair of shoes, $15 and $6, right? So now the neighbor came to ask for his 50 dollar, as the 50 dollar bill he was previously given was a fake bill. So how much need Mike to pay the guy.....the $21 he had on hand, plus he had to put up another $29. So what had Mike lost? The $29 out of his pocket, the pair of shoes at cost (which is $15). Therefore the loss was $44.
Ha hah ha, this is getting ridiculous... You somehow totally misinterpreted my post. I don't know where your comprehension broke down but you can try reading it again or working with the following explanation: The only point I was making was that he was clearly out $44 and had one less pair of shoes in inventory after the theft. He potentially could have sold those stolen shoes for some kind of profit. Let's just assume it was $6 and that he would have sold them the next day. Now, IF he could easily replace that stolen pair of shoes at no extra cost (beyond the $15 purchasing cost) with a new pair provided to him by his supplier as part of his next shipment (as opposed to having to manufacture the replacement shoes on his own and bear the costs associated with that process), he could then sell that new pair and make $6 of profit. Therefore, there would be no need to factor in the $6 of lost potential profit from the stolen shoes and he would still end up losing only the original $44. Basically, the idea was that there would be no lost potential profit associated with the stolen shoes unless for any reason he could not replace them at no additional cost beyond the $15 purchasing cost (but would have been able to sell the replacements in addition to all his existing inventory) or those stolen shoes were the last pair and he would have been able to sell them if they were not stolen.
Well, don't look at how much the customer paid, look at the owner. The owner has the problem, he received fake money and no profit is made. If the the owner can spend the fake bill, then he's made a profit. If not, how can you make a profit by gaining something you can't spent??? This is going nowhere, if we both agree that the loss was 44 dollars, then that's all that matters.
Well the shoes he buys for 15 will not have been stored, stocked, tried on a customer, boxed up, bagged, and made change for. You have to pay someone to do all of that. The shoe for 15 probably comes on a truck with alot of other shoes. after it comes of the truck labor is put into it just like labor is put into parts of a widget. Why do you think they pay people who work at a department store? The shoe that was lost (stolen, whatever) was one that had already had the full service retail labor put into it.
Owner profited $6 and was scammed $50. $50- $6 is $44. But thats too easy. Lets try to get lost in the details: Sure he profited $6, but how much did he charge for the shoes? Answer $21. How did I get that? I added how much the owner paid for the shoes to how much he marked up the shoes. $15 + $6 = $21. The owner charged $21 for the shoes, I just proved it by adding it up, even though it was given in the question. But thats not all. He had to make change for what he was paid. He was paid $50, so how much did the owner have to make in change? Answer he had to make $29 in change. The owner received $50 and he charged his customer the aforementioned $15 + $6 = $21. $50 - $21 = $29. $29 in change. And then there is more. And then he had to pay his neighbor $50 for the fake bill. Thats $50 he gave to his neighbor and then $50 he received from his neighbor, breaking even in the original transaction, which is normally how change is made, and then there was the $29 in change he gave to the customer, which we just went over, and that leaves $21 that the owner kept in profits, $15 of which he used to cover his costs for the shoes, and that leaves $6 of which he got to keep for a sweet profit of his own - which is what we knew before we did any of these calculations. Oh, wait, that is until he realized that he was given a fake $50 by his customer which he in turn unknowingly gave to his neighbor, and then had to go into his own pocket to make it right for his neighbor. Long story short, owner out $50 again that sweet $6 profit, $50 - $6 = $44. Check out how circular the master equation appears... = [50 - (50 - 50) - 15 - (50 - (15+6))] - 50 = [50 - ( 0 ) - 15 - (50 - (15+6))] - 50 = [ 50 - 15 - (50 - ( 21 ))] - 50 = [ 50 - 15 - ( 29 )] - 50 = [ 50 - 44 ] - 50 = [ 6 ] - 50 = -44 Fifty appears in the equation five times. Once as how much owner received from the customer, once for how much he gave to the neighbor and how much the neighbor gave back to him, once used to calculate how much change to give to the customer, and once to mark what he had to replay his neighbor for the fake bill, which is, in sum to say that he only thought he was given a 50. 50 - (50 - 50) - 50= 0; i.e. no money in. I left out the (50 - (15 +6) because that is money that in actuality did go out; 50 - 21, or $29. Fifteen appears twice in the equation, once as the cost to the owner to produce the shoes, and once as part of the calculation of what change to make for the customer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kinda easier andmore intuitive to look at it as a flow of money in/money out. Column on the right in parenthesis is how much cash is in the owner's hands: Owner took $50. +50 (+50) Owner got smaller bills for the $50. -50 + 50 = 0 (+50) Owner made change for the $50. (15+6) - 50 = -29 (+21) Owner cost for the shoes. -15 (+6) Owner reimbursed neighbor for the fake bill -50 (-44) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another way to sum it up is as (A) a successful transaction, and then (B) making an adjustment once one realizes the scam. (A) Owner took in $21 from customer. +21 Owner paid out $15, cost of shoes. - 15 Owner made a profit of $6. 21-15=$6 (B) Oops. $50 is fake. Owner reimburses change making neighbor. -50 Total loss -50 + 6 = $44 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or one can get the same answer by counting losses starting from the point of realization that one has been scammed Owner out $15 for the shoes. -15 Owner lost $ 29 in change for the fake bill. (15+6)- 50 = -29 Total loss 15 + 29 = $44 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funny to see people arguing about whether the owner lost 29 or 50 dollars, each being right from one's own perspective. Similarly amusing watching people double account for, or leave out the $15, and then argue about whether or not the potential profit of the $6 should be double counted.
yeah, quite clear. the neighbour gave the seller $50 but the seller gave it back to him later, so no loss here. So the LOSS part is just between the seller and the buyer. $29 changes and one pair of shoes ($15) =44bucks
It is time to review the Math Quiz instead of the tape of Rox game. This Quiz tells us one truth: Fake money means Loss. You got fake players, fake coach, fake management, etc, you will surely lose the games. This year, we got new coach, new players, and new management. Could we be told who the fake money is? Clutch? DADAKOTA? Somebody, anybody? I have been seeing enough. SOS.
