Done This Puzzle Yet?

[securespark]

I think you could argue that the thief returning isn't immaterial, it's one of the events which we're being asked to mathematically take into account - in which case
there's not enough info in the question to give a definitive answer. The effect of the purchase on how out of pocket the shopkeeper is, is unknown.

Scenario A:
£100 stolen
therefore £100 out of pocket
£70 returned, therefore out of pocket by £30...
for goods which cost (out of pocket) nothing (fell off the back of a lorry)
therefore out of pocket by £30

Scenario B:
£100 stolen
therefore £100 out of pocket
£70 returned, therefore out of pocket by £30...
for goods which cost (out of pocket) £80 (it's a loss-leader to encourage new trade)
Therefore out of pocket by £30 plus £80, total £110

Scenario C:
The shopkeeper had a £500 bet with a friend that he could sell the goods, which were given to the shopkeeper for free. No-one was ever going to buy them, because they were useless. The thief (for whatever reason) bought them
Therefore out of pocket by £30, but up by £500, so a £430 profit overall.

You can't know how much the shopkeeper is out of pocket by these events unless you know the effect on his or her pocket of the sale.

But if you are thinking about it from this angle, then would the loss be the full retail value of the goods?

In other words, what he would have been able to sell them for to anyone else?

 

[securespark]

I have not found a definitive answer, but I believe it to be £100.

Some people have calculated that figure differently.

Some say it is the amount of money originally stolen.

Others say it is the sum of the goods purchased and the change received.

Either way, the figure is the same.

The £100 was in the register, then someone took it, so now you have -£100. The thief comes back in with that £100 and pays. So now you have the money he stole back, but you give him £30 change so now you're down -£30.
And the merchandise you "sold" was actually taken considering the money was already yours, therefore he took another £70. So you lost £100.

But folk seem to have an explanation for every answer offered:

"They took out the 100, then they came back and bought something for 70.

So now your register is short 130 because you just gave them 30 dollars in change.

But then they got the merchandise for free. So the answer is 200."

"If they stole 100 and then "bought" 70 worth of your merchandise with your own money that they stole from your register, wouldn't that equal the 100 from the register plus the 70 of merchandise: 170?"

"The answer is 130 because you lost 100 then you gained seventy then lost that then you lost 30, which comes out to 130

-100 initial loss
+ 70 payment for goods
_ 70 loss of goods
_ 30 change
______
130"

 

[ladylola]

'Course for insurance claims the shop keeper would probably calculate it at £100+£70+£30 ,

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Original question slightly rephrased:
You're a shopkeeper.

A thief comes in your store and steals £100 from the register without you knowing.

He then returns and buys £70 worth of merchandise with that stolen £100, and you give him back £30 as change.

How much are you short of in your till?



I am afraid, the correct answer is A. which is £30.00

If I use a formula, where
x= initial amount in the till,
y=amount stolen,
z = amount left behind,
a= amount given by thief for a new purchase and
b=change given to him
c= new balance
d= total loss

therefore d= x- (x-y+a-b)
which equals £30. loss in takings for the day.

(goods sold do not matter as the question asks how much is your till short of money? ) Doesn't ask what is your total loss.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Well, of course you can get a different answer by asking a different question which is not rephrasing.

 

[Ian H]

If the second visit was a new customer and they spent £70 got £30 change the shopkeeper is still down £100. He could still profit over the day's trading but whatever happens he is £100 out of pocket.

Unless he has his dinner at a Little Chef, then he would have been robbed twice!!!

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Or Wimpy. Haven't see one of these for ages, my favorite used to be egg bender and chips!

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Or Wimpy. Haven't see one of these for ages, my favorite used to be egg bender and chips!

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2EG6BACMAEs-hW.jpg:large&imgrefurl=http://twicsy.com/i/xoL47g&docid=EbOFGXJde4GcdM&tbnid=mw8pd9iDLr1FRM:&vet=1&w=504&h=504&bih=657&biw=1422&q=egg bender and chips&ved=0ahUKEwjt1-b92MTRAhWMJsAKHZQmDHQQMwgcKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8

I wish I could head for one now!

 

[dreadnoughtheating]

Wimpy Bars also had the 'squeezy' tomato shaped sauce containers, which if you gripped with both hands and well, squeezed hard enuff, it would hit the ceiling.

And I wonder why me and my pals were not welcomed back the next time.... (this was the mid-seventies after all)

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Wimpy Bars also had the 'squeezy' tomato shaped sauce containers, which if you gripped with both hands and well, squeezed hard enuff, it would hit the ceiling.

And I wonder why me and my pals were not welcomed back the next time.... (this was the mid-seventies after all)

Probably why they closed some of the branches, having to keep painting ceilings white! LOL
Down my area now you don't get any wimpy bars because of chicken & kebab ****e!

 

[securespark]

Still around....

http://www.wimpy.uk.com/images/downloads/Menu/2016/Wimpy UK _Breakfast Menu.pdf

MFL: there are loads round the Smoke...scroll through this list and you could soon be sitting down to a pork bender breakfast!

http://www.wimpy.uk.com/locator?pos...&task=search_zip&option=com_locator&go=Submit

Let me know how it compares!

 

[Mikefromlondon]

Thanks securespark, Didn't know they had a branch less than a mile away from Royal London Hospital where I went this Saturday, and had a whole 2 hours to kill, as I went along with my wife who is undergoing some investegation for unexplained weight loss, had to accompany her as she would be sedated, but while they did their probing I had two hours to kill, I could have been tucking in a couple of pork benders, fried egg and chips ( Back in 80s they called it egg bender and it came as a whooper bun stacked with a bender and fried egg and chips on side) instead I settled for a boring egg and mayo sandwich and a Costa coffee that set me back £5.50 in the hospital cafe, would have enjoyed wimpy a million times better.

 

[dreadnoughtheating]

I am not quite sure either me or the poor soul on the other side of the counter taking my order for a 'pork bender' would be able to maintain a straight face.

might it not be taken to have, ahem, certain 'connotations'?

Checking the location of my nearest branch in Lowestoft (or 'Lowie' as it is known colloquially, apparently) a trip down memory lane may well be in order. If only to see if they have those giant tomato shaped sauce containers....

 

[securespark]

a trip down memory lane may well be in order. If only to see if they have those giant tomato shaped sauce containers....

Judging from this photo, sadly not. They have own-brand sauce in squeezy bottles.

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Resta...humbnailMinWidth=50&cnt=30&offset=-1&filter=7

 

[JohnD]

you can still buy the big plastic tomatoes, I got one for entertainment, but they are made of a stiff plastic now, and don't squeeze well.

I suspect the "bender" is a hot dog, which cannot be sold as a sausage as it contains nothing that is defined as meat.