Confusing question

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I might be!

Joking aside, the two things are exactly the same. The shop is down £100 both ways.

See PB’s response above. He is correct.

 

[Barcon]

Shoplifters of the world, unite and takeover

Stop it.

 

[KS55]

No he gave them 70 back.

Which balanced the till ‘sales total’ for which he took goods valued at £70, so he gave them nothing back. The till is still £100 down.
I suggest that you should never own a shop!

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

See PB’s response above. He is correct.

It's just interpretation and would need testing in a court of law to prove one way or the other. Personally I think the fact that the thief has used the money (even if not all of it) proves they had no intention in returning the original £100, and so are classed as stealing all of it.

It's a stupid scenario with a stupid thief anyway.

 

[Coatigan]

See PB’s response above. He is corect.

Shite gif.

I think both of you have fallen for the deliberate distraction. The two are simply not related, in the same way I or you spending £70 in the shop is not related. The shop will remain £100 down.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's just interpretation and would need testing in a court of law to prove one way or the other. Personally I think the fact that the thief has used the money (even if not all of it) proves they had no intention in returning the original £100, and so are classed as stealing all of it.

It's a stupid scenario with a stupid thief anyway.

@Coatigan and I hadn’t even debated which country’s laws we should be using. You’ve opened up a whole new avenue of debate, thanks! ;-)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Shite gif.

I think both of you have fallen for the deliberate distraction. The two are simply not related, in the same way I or you spending £70 in the shop is not related. The shop will remain £100 down.

I refer you to my post above about referring to PB now, you GIF hating monster.

 

[Coatigan]

@Coatigan and I hadn’t even debated which country’s laws we should be using. You’ve opened up a whole new avenue of debate, thanks! ;-)

Or what the shop would have been down pre-brexit.

 

[Coatigan]

The shopkeeper has lost the £30 cash plus the wholesale cost of replacing the £70 of goods paid for with his own money.

He starts with £100 in the till and £70 of goods on the shelf. At the end of the scenario, he has £70 in the till but has to find the cash to replace the £70 of goods taken.

To get back to where he was, with £100 in the till and goods worth £70 on the shelf, he has to put £30 cash back in the till and pay whatever it costs to replace the (effectively) stolen goods. Then he'll have £100 in the till and £70 (at retail value) of goods on the shelf.

Now, can we all get back to taking the piss out of united or arguing whether it's a barm or a muffin?

Even in this example, if you work it through line by line, the final result is still 100, after a completely backwards way of looking at it.

100(till) + 70(goods) before event
70(till) + 0(goods) after,
-30 to bring till up to 100, +0 goods
-70 to replace the goods
-100 overall.

 

[Coatigan]

Being unable to see it any other way, despite AHT's valiant efforts, I thought I'd find the source riddle. Which appeared online in 2019 (likely older), in dollars, and with a multiple choice of 30, 70, 100, and 170 for answers.

And according to all websites I've found that use it, and a youtube video, the answer is always 100. It is described as 'designed to confuse with the wording, but following the events in logical order, the result ends up 100'.

Between that, a few logical posts on here, my own initial take, and an AI response, I am more than satisfied that a few have simply fallen for the deliberate misdirection here and overthought it.

I can leave this thread in peace.