nothing. you divide the 20 by 3 and add it to the 10 each got you get 300. the $270 just represents the overpayment since the clerk pocketed 20 of their change

At this point they really paid $250-- so 3x$90=$270 then subtract $20 = $250. Really samething mckl said but maybe easier to understand. Actually mck1 didn't state it correctly because it doesn't add up to $300.-sorry

[Edited by - bigreddog on 02-18-2008 5:18 PM]

Posted by BigRedDog:

At this point they really paid $250-- so 3x$90=$270 then subtract $20 = $250. Really samething mckl said but maybe easier to understand.

Yes. It's interesting how they can give you a question, mislead you about one small piece and thus utterly confuse you. The trick is knowing that you subtract the $20, not add. Good jaerb.

Well first of all the TV cost 250
so 250/3= so each person should have paid 83.33 cents-but they paid a hundred so they paid 16.66 extra each.
Each person received back tenn dollars- so that leaves 6.66x3 = 20 dollars for the thief of a clerk.

In short - they were robbed - but they didn't know it. There is no extra or missing 10 dollars as you can see- because their rightful share was 83.33 and they instead paid 100. They should have been refunded 16.66 cents each but were only refunded 10.


clerk takes 20 as pointed out 6.66 x3 = 20
the 'missing ten dollars' - is actually the 3.33cents from the 83.33
3.33x3 = 10


[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 01:16 AM]

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Well first of all the TV cost 250
so 250/3= so each person should have paid 83.33 cents-but they paid a hundred so they paid 16.66 extra each.
Each person received back tenn dollars- so that leaves 6.66x3 = 20 dollars for the thief of a clerk.

In short - they were robbed - but they didn't know it. There is no extra or missing 10 dollars as you can see- because their rightful share was 83.33 and they instead paid 100. They should have been refunded 16.66 cents each but were only refunded 10.


clerk takes 20 as pointed out 6.66 x3 = 20
the 'missing ten dollars' - is actually the 3.33cents from the 83.33
3.33x3 = 10


[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 01:16 AM]

You like to make it sound like it's complicated don't you? ;)

Posted by iyamwutiam:

No actually - I rushed to explain and just wrote it bad. The key to the answer was 83.33. By making people think in terms of 10s -80/90/100 - the division of 250/3 was circumvented. I am not sure if the answer is right - waitin gfor Solace.

Anyway - I would agree - that I should have wrote it more simple.

What? No the answer to "why is there $290" is "because you incorrectly added twenty dollars to the total amount paid by the three men. Cash accrual method of accounting requires an offsetting $20 deduction from the $250 for the tv in order to balance the $270 they paid in total. In short you added instead of subtracted. oops. AND THERE IS NO SPOON"

Posted by iyamwutiam:

Well first of all the TV cost 250
so 250/3= so each person should have paid 83.33 cents-but they paid a hundred so they paid 16.66 extra each.
Each person received back tenn dollars- so that leaves 6.66x3 = 20 dollars for the thief of a clerk.

In short - they were robbed - but they didn't know it. There is no extra or missing 10 dollars as you can see- because their rightful share was 83.33 and they instead paid 100. They should have been refunded 16.66 cents each but were only refunded 10.


clerk takes 20 as pointed out 6.66 x3 = 20
the 'missing ten dollars' - is actually the 3.33cents from the 83.33
3.33x3 = 10


[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 12:32 AM]

[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-19-2008 01:16 AM]

I think you got the gist, although that was a very wordy explanation. In addition, I think your post qualifies as a proof of division.