## To think that this sum is super simple

(531 Posts)$20

20

(that's profit)

He’s up $20

He made £20 in total by selling the horse?

He is $10 up at the end

He earned £20

I think he made 10 but my maths is shocking

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

He made $10?

£20 up

$20 up.

That always seems to be how these things go on Facebook though :-)

He's up £10

He made $20

Haha Xmas, that's true!

I think he made $30.

-60

+70

-80

+90~~-~~~~----~~

+20

$30 profit

Financially, it's the same as:*Man buys a horse for $60, then sells it for $70. Next, he buys a cow for $80 and sells it for $90.*

Does that change anyone's answer?

What do **you** think the answer is OP?

$10 profit in the end...isn’t it?

He made $10?

Up 30 surely?

He made $20. $10 profit on each transaction. It you look at each transaction separately it makes more sense.

He earned £10

£20- easy peasy

Made 20 but 10 profit? My maths is shockingly bad.

10 up

he spent 60+80 = 140.

He made 70+90 =160

difference is =20

The first transaction he made $10, then he was down $10 when he bought back at a loss, then he sold again for $10 profit which wiped out the $10 loss so all in all he broke even in my book

Has to be 20.

I though 10 profit at the end but not sure nlw

He spends a total of $140 and 'earns' a total of $160. $20 difference.

**Ifailed** and **BookHelpPlease** have encapsulated it perfectly. It's definitely $20.

Up 20

Ladies the first transaction is separate from the first. He makes 10 on each transaction. So he makes 20 in total.

Just done it on a calculator and will change my answer to say he's up $20

My maths is awful!!

I know it's $20. But there are people saying anything from break even to $40 profit.

Some of the ones that are wrong are telling the period that are right that they shouldn't run a business of that's how they calculate profit! It's highly amusing.

He paid $60 for the horse, and sold it at the end for $90. $30 profit. I think

People on Facebook do tend to be spanners though!

Ha! I’ve pondered it further and I’m changing my answer to $20.

Though I can see why these are confusing!

People*

He's only made $10

Up $20?

Would it hel those who got it wrong to think of it as 2 different horses?

$20

If you imagine you had $200 in your hand while making these transactions, how much would you end up with afterwards? (I chose $200 at random, could be anything as long as you’ve got enough to buy the most expensive horse).

That’s your profit.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I came out at he broke even...

Of course it's 20.

Yes, separate transactions. He made a $10 profit on each.

Or he spent 60 + 80 = $140

But sold for 70 + 90 = $160

Or any other variation you may prefer.

**@Pengggwn** I don't think not being great at maths is highly amusing.

I think people that are telling others not to run a business as they can't work out profit correctly when they are entirely wrong themselves is highly amusing.

People that aren't good at maths know it, and wouldn't be so bold as to make that kind of comment.

Sorry, that included my reasoning. But these things annoy/amuse me

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

if you take it from him having $60... he sells for $70 - so he made $10

he then buys the same thing for $80 so someone else made $10

Then sells it for $90 so made another $10.

He made $20, someone else made $10.

(none of it will be profit since keeping and transporting a horse costs a damn lot more than $20!)

I can see why people are interpreting it in different ways for answers $10 $20 and $30.

I belive the correct answer is:

Revenue (70 + 90) = 160

Cost of sales -(60 + 80) = -140

Gross profit = 20

However I can see why people think it’s $30 (90-60) as they think you take the last sales price and the first purchase price.

Also can see 10 because you think you make 10 on the first transaction, then spend 10 to get the horse then make 10 again.

Can’t see 40 or break even.

$20 profit.

$20 profit

And to be fair, the people that are getting it wrong seem to be either over-complicating it and doing something with a perceived $10 loss in the middle, or over-simplifying it saying he started with 60, now he has 90. And I can understand how either could easily happen and when you have that concept in your head its hard to see past it.

20.

You’re right; some people aren’t great at maths, but this is very basic arithmetic, or simple logic. Can those who came out as break even, $10 or $30 explain how they got there?

I don't think it helps to look at it as 2 separate transactions because it's not.

The way I'm looking at it it is how much money did he make from his initial investment in this one horse?

I still think that is only $10.

He made 20 profit.

Twice he bought something and then sold it for then more than he paid.

Like I said I’m not good at maths he paid out 80 for the horse then got 90 back so the final difference was 10 that’s how I got 10 profit overall

This encapsulates the problem with the financial system. You can get the numbers to say all sorts depending on what you want them to - I say this as an accountant!

The question asks **in the end**, so surely it's net profit, not gross profit?

$10 - he gained

**Like I said I’m not good at maths he paid out 80 for the horse then got 90 back so the final difference was 10 that’s how I got 10 profit overall**

Why are you ignoring the first time he bought and sold the horse?

The $40 I sat was someone saying 90-60 =40.

The break even people generally say

He spent 60, got back 70 which was 10 profit plus his 60. He then spends 80 which is the 70 plus 10, then he gets 90 which gives him his 70 plus the two extra 10's that he already spent.

Which is super complicated and doesn't make sense...

I thought the wording of the question wanted the final profit the final amount ‘up’

This isn't even maths, it's a really basic logic question. I am shocked at the amount of people confused by it.

Bookaboo-

He spent 60 + 80 = 140

he earns 70 + 90= 160

He makes 20 in profit.

They are separate transactions. Once he's sold the horse, he could be buying anything the second time.

Imagine he bought a horse for 60, sold it for 70 makes £10.

Then buys a cow for 80, sold it for 90, makes another £10.

*I don't think it helps to look at it as 2 separate transactions because it's not*

Yes it is!

It is easy, yes.

$20 profit.

To avoid confusion, he spends out $140 in total, and gets back $160 in total.

I’m really thick at maths but even I got it.

broke even made 2 £10 profits and 2 £10 losses

Sorry - that means he was $20 up by the end!! ( well done him - but buying and sellling horses is quite a complex and labour intensive way to make $20! Unless it's all online!!)

Bookaboo, the net and gross profit in this case are the same, as there are no other costs.

Bookaboo it is two separate transactions, which is why it is helpful to view them as such.

The people that are getting it wrong are the people that are doing something funny in the middle with a perceived loss.

Instead of doing something with a perceived loss try adding and subtracting the total amounts paid /received to get the profit figure.

Oooh! Interesting perspective:

You only have $60 dollars to your name. Over weekend you buy and sell a horse and on Monday morning you have $90... so your profit is $30.

But, as I tried to explain to the friend who is here pondering this..... you only had $60, then $70. But the second purchase was $80, so you had to borrow $10 from me and pay me back...

Not sure our morning is going as we planned

*The question asks in the end, so surely it's net profit, not gross profit?*

No, net profit would take into account his expenses and, as someone said unthread, transporting the horses would normally incur a loss.

The farmer is £20 better off at the end than he was at the start. No matter how I look at it, I can’t get to any other answer.

Have I missed something, like misread a word, and the answer is actually five magic beans or a pig?

20 profit

I also got 10 (maths is not my strong point either!) because he paid out 60, got back 70, so up 10. Then he paid out 80, so paid the 70 he now has, plus another 10 from his money, so he's 10 down. Then he gets back 90, which is his 70 from the last transaction, then one of the extra 10s goes to paying off the extra 10 he needed from the second transaction, which leaves 10.

I think I've now massively confused myself...

Curious - he didn't have only $60 tobhis name to begin with - unless a team some point he went $10 into his overdraft!! (Sounds like me)!

When did everything become super?

Buys for $60 ($0-$60) has -$60

Sells for $70 (-60+70) has +$10

Buys for $80 (10-80) has -$70

Sells for $90 (-70+90) has $20

I always find, when people say something is really simple, that those people don't all agree on the same answer, but that doesn't seem to affect their view that its simple and they're right!

I didn't find it totally obvious what the answer was, and took a minute to work it out - as if I had an account with $100 to start with, then did the 4 transactions in turn.

I was not super fast, but I am really confident I know what the answer is. $20 profit.**You can get the numbers to say all sorts depending on what you want them to**

Not so - it really doesn't depend how you look at it with numbers - they are consistent and logical!

Yanbu but I'm not sure why you care so much that some people are getting it wrong. It's Facebook.

I’m fairly innumerate but found this easy. It’s not at all a maths problem

(assuming you can add and subtract simple numbers), it’s a reading comprehension/ logic problem.

It’s ok to be bad at those things too.

It's too ambiguous as a statement though isn't it. You can look at it a number of ways. You can either say he made $20 profit by taking the transactions as independent variables or by looking at in as cumulative profit in the context of all the transactions.

Broke even ?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

**You can look at it a number of ways. You can either say he made $20 profit by taking the transactions as independent variables or by looking at in as cumulative profit in the context of all the transactions.**

But the correct answer will be the same either way, so it doesn't matter which way you look at it surely?

Yeah, I agree. You don't get this wrong by being weak at maths (the maths involved is very, very basic). You get it wrong by being weak at comprehension and/or logic skills.

Its 30

He started off with 60 and ended up with 90

Haha, love the 'backlash'.**@SweetIcedTea** in not sure that everything has become super. I'll watch the news and get back to you.**@LS83** I do care. Deeply. It saddens me to the very core that people are calling other people out when they in fact have the wrong answer themselves. It's traumatising. I'm not sure how I'm going to get through the day.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Well, we don't know his actual profit because the horse cost him to feed.

Then there's deperciation of the asset...

**I've got maths A-level and I think there's an argument for saying that he made either 10 or 20. It depends on whether you see it as 1 or 2 transactions. Because if it's one transaction, he lost 10 by buying it back for 80 when he'd sold for 70.**

It doesn't matter how many transactions you see it as. When all the transactions are over and done with, the bloke is 20 better off than he was at the start.

Depreciation obv

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »Already registered? Log in with:

##### Compose message

Please login first.