The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
The correct answer to the riddle is—$100.
Here is a detailed explanation of why the store lost a total of $100.
This classic riddle is designed to be confusing by making you focus on the wrong details, particularly the initial theft of the $100 bill. The key is to track the flow of assets—both cash and goods—from the store’s perspective.
The simplest way to solve this is to tally the final, tangible losses for the store. At the end of the entire scenario, what is the store missing that it had before the man walked in?
- The Goods: The man walked out with $70 worth of merchandise. This is a direct loss of assets for the store.
- The Change: The store gave the man $30 in cash as change from its register. This is another direct loss of assets.
If you add these two concrete losses together, you get the final answer:
$70 (in goods) +
30(incash)=∗∗30(incash)=∗∗100**
Why Other Answers Are Incorrect
The primary source of confusion is the stolen $100 bill itself. Many people mistakenly double-count this amount. Let’s break down the transaction step-by-step to see why this is a mistake:
- Step 1: The Theft. The man steals $100. At this moment, the store is down $100 cash.
- Step 2: The Purchase. The man uses that same stolen $100 bill to pay. When he hands it to the cashier, he’s gains or getting bogged down in the sequence of events.
Let’s look at the situation from the store’s perspective and consider what it has permanently lost at the end of the day.
- The Goods: The man walks out of the store with $70 worth of merchandise. This is a direct, tangible loss for the store.
- The Change: The store gives the man $30 in cash as change from its register. This cash is also gone for good.
If you simply add these two definitive losses together, you get the answer:
$70 (in goods) + $30 (in cash) = $100 total loss.
The confusing element is the stolen $100 bill itself. Many people mistakenly think the initial theft of $100 should be added to the other losses, leading to answers like $170 or $200. However, this is incorrect because it involves double-counting.
Think of the journey of that specific $100 bill—it was taken from the register, but then it was returned to the register during the purchase. From the store’s point of view, the stolen bill made a round trip. It left, but then it came back. The net loss from that specific bill being moved around is zero. The transaction merely served as a clever way for the thief to launder the stolen bill and convert it into things of value—the goods and the change.
Essentially, the thief took something worth $100 (the bill) and exchanged it for
100worthofotherassetsfromthestore(100worthofotherassetsfromthestore(70 in goods and $30 in cash). No matter how you break it down, the store is out exactly $100 in value compared to before the man ever walked in. is effectively returning the stolen money to the register. For a brief moment, the initial theft has been nullified—the store has its $100 back.
- Step 3: The Transaction’s Outcome. From that returned $100, the store gives the man $70 in goods and $30 in cash change. This is where the actual, final loss occurs.
Think of it this way—the thief essentially swapped a stolen $100 bill for $70 in goods and $30 in cash. The store’s loss is exactly what the thief gained. He left with $70 worth of items and $30 of the store’s money, for a total gain of $100. Therefore, the store’s loss is precisely $100
