A man buys a goat for $60, sells it for $70....

[null]

Does the order of the purchases and sales matter..? Clearly not.
Then just reverse the order of the transactions.

Buy 80 - sell 90.
> gained 10
Buy 60 - sell 70
> gained 10

 

[xCivicx]

Does the order of the purchases and sales matter..? Clearly not.
Then just reverse the order of the transactions.

Buy 80 - sell 90.
> gained 10
Buy 60 - sell 70
> gained 10

The order does matter smh

This is what I mean. Why would you randomly assume that the order doesn't matter? Is that explicitly stated anywhere

Y'all really let y'alls imaginations go wild in here

A fundamental concept of mathematics is to reduce a problem to it's simplest form THEN solve for it. Assumptions and extrapolations are kept to a minimum

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

A company can simultaneously make 20 million and break even, so that' where you are exposing yourself

But cool, I'll ask you too. Please explain where it was stated how much dude had to start with? I'm curious as how why you guys are so confident making an assumption about his starting worth when it was never stated anywhere

It is not stated, cuz it doesn't matter (unless there's a cost to borrowing money, which they didn't state that there is).

If he started with $100 in his pocket he ends up with $120 in his pocket after completing the two transactions.

If he started with $0 in his bank account but used a credit card to make both purchases, he'll end up with $20 in his account after paying back the credit card company by his due date (so no financing charges).

You're overthinking and incorrectly thinking it.

 

[100Percent]

Imagine a company's CEO telling its board/investors "maybe we made $20 million this quarter, maybe we broke even...it's all subjective "

"How much did you make off the goats today honey?"



"... "

 

[xCivicx]

It is not stated, cuz it doesn't matter (unless there's a cost to borrowing money, which they didn't state that there is).

If he started with $100 in his pocket he ends up with $120 in his pocket after completing the two transactions.

If he started with $0 in his bank account but used a credit card to make both purchases, he'll end up with $20 in his account after paying back the credit card company by his due date (so no financing charges).

You're overthinking and incorrectly thinking it.

It does matter smh. You're still underthinking and making assumptions based on nothing but your imagination

Nothing about his starting worth NOR using credit cards is stated ANYWHERE smh

In the simplest terms that even a 5 year old could understand, in order for him to make both transactions he would need $70 to start with AT THE VERY LEAST.

Nothing in any of your posts matters beyond this simple fact. If he had less than 70 to start then he could not have made these tranactions AT ALL

So THATS where you start with the transaction. You assuming that he has $100 or credit cards is completely irrelevant and is just a product of your own imagination. It means nothing

He spends 60, makes 70. Profit 10. He then spends 80, EATING THE FIRST PROFIT, then makes 90. Profit 10.

This is the simplest most logical way to solve this problem. All assumptions and imagination kept to a minimum

Now please explain how you figured out that dude started with more than $70 when it's never explicitly stated anywhere thanks

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Now please explain how you figured out that dude started with more than $70 when it's never explicitly stated anywhere thanks

I'm convinced you're not even bothering to read my posts which are typically less than 5 sentences. I made no assumptions on how much he started with, cuz it does not matter.

Here, I'll walk you through the example of him starting with $0 and using credit cards to make the purchase. First he buys a goat for $60, so he owes Amex $60. Then he sells that goat for $70 cash. Then he buys that goat again for $80, so now he owes Amex $60+$80=$140. But then he sells the goat for $90 cash, so he had a total of $70+$90=$160 cash. He then takes that cash and pays Amex the $140 he owes them and he's left with $160-$140=$20. That's his profit. That's how much money he made. It's not any more complicated than that.


You could repeat this exercise with him starting with any amount of money and as long as there is no cost to borrowing money, the profit will always be $20.

 

[null]

The order does matter smh

This is what I mean. Why would you randomly assume that the order doesn't matter? Is that explicitly stated anywhere

Y'all really let y'alls imaginations go wild in here

A fundamental concept of mathematics is to reduce a problem to it's simplest form THEN solve for it. Assumptions and extrapolations are kept to a minimum

Because they are two independent transactions. The first has nothing to do with the second.

Try this one one for size. Maybe it will help you.

Buy for 60 -> sell for 70.
>Gained 10. (label M)
Buy for 80 -> sell for 80.

By your logic at this point he is flat. No profit.

Let's consider the transaction from the other side.

Sell for 60 - Buy for 70.
>Lose 10
Sell for 80 -> Buy for 80.

By your logic this should also be zero BUT it is clear that this person has lost 10.

ergo => the other side gained 10.
Now looking at 'Buy for 80 -> sell for 80' any increase in the right hand side leads to a bigger gain .
So Buy for 80 -> sell for 80 + n => gain of N
In our case N == 10.
and M + N
== 10 + 10
== 20

 

[5n0man]

It does matter smh. You're still underthinking and making assumptions based on nothing but your imagination

Nothing about his starting worth NOR using credit cards is stated ANYWHERE smh

In the simplest terms that even a 5 year old could understand, in order for him to make both transactions he would need $70 to start with AT THE VERY LEAST.

Nothing in any of your posts matters beyond this simple fact. If he had less than 70 to start then he could not have made these tranactions AT ALL

So THATS where you start with the transaction. You assuming that he has $100 or credit cards is completely irrelevant and is just a product of your own imagination. It means nothing

He spends 60, makes 70. Profit 10. He then spends 80, EATING THE FIRST PROFIT, then makes 90. Profit 10.

This is the simplest most logical way to solve this problem. All assumptions and imagination kept to a minimum

Now please explain how you figured out that dude started with more than $70 when it's never explicitly stated anywhere thanks

I can't believe you nikkas is still arguing about this.


The link for the solution has already been posted, its $20.

He started the transaction at $60, he had $80 by the end. What the fukk are you arguing??

 

[OneManGang]

This thread is painful at this point.

I can't believe you nikkas is still arguing about this.


The link for the solution has already been posted, its $20.

He started the transaction at $60, he had $80 by the end. What the fukk are you arguing??

shyt is crazy. The nerve to call black people bad with money too

 

[MITS]

Gross $20. Net $10

Stfu now

 

[xCivicx]

I'm convinced you're not even bothering to read my posts which are typically less than 5 sentences. I made no assumptions on how much he started with, cuz it does not matter.

Here, I'll walk you through the example of him starting with $0 and using credit cards to make the purchase. First he buys a goat for $60, so he owes Amex $60. Then he sells that goat for $70 cash. Then he buys that goat again for $80, so now he owes Amex $60+$80=$140. But then he sells the goat for $90 cash, so he had a total of $70+$90=$160 cash. He then takes that cash and pays Amex the $140 he owes them and he's left with $160-$140=$20. That's his profit. That's how much money he made. It's not any more complicated than that.


You could repeat this exercise with him starting with any amount of money and as long as there is no cost to borrowing money, the profit will always be $20.

Here you are once again imagining things and making this easy problem much much harder than it has to be

Once again, there was no mention of any credit cards. There is no mention of him borrowing anything at all. I'm not sure why you keep trying to add things to this problem at aren't there

Once again, at the very least, he would need $70 in order to be able to make both transactions, so that's the simplest place to start when attempting to figure this problem out

Once again, he buys a goat for $60 and sells it for $70. Net profit $10. He then buys the goat for $80. Where does that extra $10 come from? Stop creating false situations in your mind and ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND smh. There are no mention of fictitious credit cards or loans. Where is that extra $10 coming from? It has to come from him since nothing else was explicitly stated. So he uses the $10 he just made to help him buy the goat again at $80. He then sells it again for a net profit of $10

I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you to understand smh

 

[Buggsy Mogues]

You made two mistake in your flawed math or logic or whatever you want to call it. #1 you making the assumption that the dude had $90 to start with. The question doesn't state that nor is it right to add specifics that wasn't in the question.
Secondly no where in your math did you quantify the cost (or $10 loss for buying the GOAT the second time).

Read a few quarterly reports from major corporations. There is a huge difference between revenue and profit.

And you laughing a little too hard for being wrong breh lol

You are confusing yourself breh. Ya'll way overthinking this shyt.


I just used $90 as an arbitrary number. It doesn't really matter what you start with, the end result is the same.


I've got $80 in the bank... I buy the goat for $60, I have $20 left.

I sell the goat for $70, now I have $90 total.

I buy it back for $80, which I had in the bank originally, and now I'm down to $10.

Sell it for $90, which puts me at $100.

I made $20.

I bought the goat twice for $60 and $80 (60 + 80 = 140)

I sold it twice for $70 and $90 (70 + 90 = 160)

160 - 140 = 20

Why is this so hard for some of ya'll

 

[xCivicx]

Because they are two independent transactions. The first has nothing to do with the second.

Try this one one for size. Maybe it will help you.

Buy for 60 -> sell for 70.
>Gained 10. (label M)
Buy for 80 -> sell for 80.

By your logic at this point he is flat. No profit.

Let's consider the transaction from the other side.

Sell for 60 - Buy for 70.
>Lose 10
Sell for 80 -> Buy for 80.

By your logic this should also be zero BUT it is clear that this person has lost 10.

ergo => the other side gained 10.
Now looking at 'Buy for 80 -> sell for 80' any increase in the right hand side leads to a bigger gain .
So Buy for 80 -> sell for 80 + n => gain of N
In our case N == 10.
and M + N
== 10 + 10
== 20

No need to consider it from the other side, you were explicitly told the order of the transaction smh

Also the bold doesn't make any sense

Sell for 60 buy for 70 is a loss of 10

Sell for 80(at this point HE HAS BROKEN EVEN) buy for 90 is another loss of 10 for a net loss of 10

This is so simple that it's depressing how much y'all are bending over backwards and doubling down on the incorrect answer

 

[xCivicx]

I can't believe you nikkas is still arguing about this.


The link for the solution has already been posted, its $20.

He started the transaction at $60, he had $80 by the end. What the fukk are you arguing??

What link are you talking about?

 

[xCivicx]

This thread is painful at this point.

shyt is crazy. The nerve to call black people bad with money too

Y'all clearly are smh

This isn't even about money at this point. It's simple arithmetic