Confusing question

[mancity2012_eamo]

Event -------------------------------------------------------------- Store's Loss thus Far
Man steels £100 from the store's cash register ------------- £100
Man collects £70 of goods from the store ------------------- £170
Man pays for stolen goods -------------------------------------- £170 - 70 = £100
======
The store has lost £100.

That’s the way I see it, as it is written.
No goods were stolen.
I accept that if he returns 70 to the till before leaving the shop, he has only stolen 30 cash.
But then leaving the shop with 70 worth of goods is also theft.
That’s not how I read it though.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But you do see two sides to this, do you not?

I've said that. It completely depends on how you define "lost".

Coatigan is right if you define "lost" as lost revenue. He's lost £30 cash plus the £70 retail value of the goods.

If you define "lost" as how much he'd need to spend to get back to where he was, it's £30 plus the wholesale cost of replacing the items.

Alternatively you could define it as £30 plus the lost margin on the goods.

Let's assume he claims £100 on his insurance. His insurer would only pay either the cost to him of the stolen goods or his loss of profits. They absolutely would not pay him £100.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I've said that. It completely depends on how you define "lost".

Coatigan is right if you define "lost" as lost revenue. He's lost £30 cash plus the £70 retail value of the goods.

If you define "lost" as how much he'd need to spend to get back to where he was, it's £30 plus the wholesale cost of replacing the items.

Alternatively you could define it as £30 plus the lost margin on the goods.

Let's assume he claims £100 on his insurance. His insurer would only pay either the cost to him of the stolen goods or his loss of profits. They absolutely would not pay him £100.

Your last paragraph is all about what I’m saying though.
I’m saying if the items were bought, there were no stolen goods.

 

[Coatigan]

I've said that. It completely depends on how you define "lost".

Coatigan is right if you define "lost" as lost revenue. He's lost £30 cash plus the £70 retail value of the goods.

If you define "lost" as how much he'd need to spend to get back to where he was, it's £30 plus the wholesale cost of replacing the items.

Alternatively you could define it as £30 plus the lost margin on the goods.

Let's assume he claims £100 on his insurance. His insurer would only pay either the cost to him of the stolen goods or his loss of profits. They absolutely would not pay him £100.

No goods were stolen though. There were no goods lost. The goods were bought.

It really isn't dependant on how I define it or anyone else defines it. The only thing taken was the money. The rest is regular and in order. And the deliberate ruse here.

 

[Coatigan]

Your last paragraph is all about what I’m saying though.
I’m saying if the items were bought, there were no stolen goods.

At the end of the day, like all made up riddles, it has an answer that comes with it.

People can double down, reinterpret it any which way, be 'dogmatic', philosophical or facetious about it, the formal answer in all instances that give it is (£,$,€) 100. It is a bit of a leap to assume that someone carefully wrote a riddle and got its answer wrong.

edit, to add to that, the riddle is usually presented with multiple choice answers. A simple 30, 70, 100, 170 choice. No choice for 'stock value' 'insurance value' or any other loosely related arbitrary concepts.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

At the end of the day, like all made up riddles, it has an answer that comes with it.

People can double down, reinterpret it any which way, be 'dogmatic', philosophical or facetious about it, the formal answer in all instances that give it is (£,$,€) 100. It is a bit of a leap to assume that someone carefully wrote a riddle and got its answer wrong.

edit, to add to that, the riddle is usually presented with multiple choice answers. A simple 30, 70, 100, 170 choice. No choice for 'stock value' 'insurance value' or any other loosely related arbitrary concepts.

Seems logical to me.

 

[Bill Walker]

Your first sentence is right. Your second sentence incidentally is not, and is the same point Bill has wrongly fallen for.

If you had straight up shoplifted, then the loss would be the stock value not the sale value. And if the guy actually stole £70 worth of goods, Bill would be right.

He didn't though, he bought them. He stole money, and that's what the shop has lost.

People are falling for deliberately misplaced words, rather than numbers. Those words being 'back in' the till 'worth of' goods. It is the fallacy of language that distracts from basic logic. That explanation is by the riddle writers/users themselves btw, with the official correct answer always given as 100.


@Bill Walker , I asked earlier, if he steals £100, walks out with it, I walk in and buy £70 of stuff with my own money, what has the shop lost? £100. If he walks out with £100, gives it to me I go in and buy £70 of stuff, i've technically put the money 'back in the till', but it is still £100 down. The fact he doesn't walk out the shop makes zero difference, the money hasn't gone back in the till, as it is payment for sold goods.

 

[Kinkladze's crazy skills]

A man steals £100 from a shop’s cash register
He then carries on round the store and picks up £70 worth of goods
He goes to the checkout , pays for the goods with the stolen money and leaves the store with £70 worth of goods and £30 in cash

How much has the store lost?

Might be better off asking that question on RAWK...

Seems like the sort of thing that lot would know off by heart.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

View attachment 94501

Ah. So you were wrong?

 

[Bill Walker]

Ah. So you were wrong?

Sorry.. not biting.