Money Money Money

[robheaton]

Sally bought a bracelet for �21 which she then resold for �25. She unwisely accepted a cheque from the purchaser for �35 and gave him �10 change. She then gave the cheque to her landlord but it bounced. She had to borrow a further �35 to pay the rent. How much money has Sally actually lost?

[Bayesp]

�21

[fizz]

�31 lost plus the �.35 she has borrowed

[albionboy]

I think she's lost �66 - the bracelet and the loan she needed to pay the landlord

[noiret]

She hasn't lost the bracelet, she has sold it, and the money hasn't been paid. She should have received �25 plus �10 for the change she gave, making up the cheque of �35. But �25 for the bracelet includes a �4 profit, so the in real terms she's lost �21 + �10. In terms of what she MIGHT have made, it's still �25 + �10 but that's like stock market players saying they've lost millions when share values drop -- they never had the money in the first place, only as a potential. The �35 she borrowed isn't loss, since it's borrowed -- we are to assume that she will eventually pay it back. It's not really part of the problem, just a bluff to confuse. BTW, know the one about the 3 guys who pay have a meal for �27, pay �10 each, etc etc and it turns out there's a missing pound? That one's even worse for getting mixed up!

[Bahbill]

She lost �31 . The original �21 for the item and the �10 she gave to the buyer.

[lolly81]

�31 plus she borrowed �35

[spiffo]

Noiret's exactly right. Think about what would have happened if the cheque *HADN'T* bounced. She'd have still spent the �21, and she'd have still had to spend �35 on her rent (I wish my flat was that cheap) no matter what. How's it even possible that she could have lost more than �35? Anyone suggesting that she has is assuming that she'd have lost money even if the cheque hadn't bounced!