markymark93
618
11
6
Jun 14, 2019 3:11 PM
markymark93
618
11
6
potatoardvarkhybrid
it's different amounts to different "groups": i.e. mum+dad+child Vs store
Taenarius
It's because you aren't thinking about it right, set it up as an equation. 50 + 50 = 97 + 3. Then take two from the 3 and one from each 50.
insert1wittyusernamehere
The government took its taxes mate
NottherealSlimPickens
THIS MAKES ME ANGRY
ImprovedLoungewear
Sleight of hand when it's your parents, do it to the public and it's 3 to 5 in the penitentiary
blopblopfish
The 1$ you kept is actually part of the 98$. And to make it 100$ you have to add the 2 dollars you gave them. Small deal but confusing one
Cloudraker
I guess my question is why are you using borrowed money to buy such an expensive shirt
trapperjohnmd
Supreme
Orangicus
The error is where you misrepresent what's owed in plain sight. They say what they owe plainly, and the number is wrong.
Orangicus
They do this in the middle and it's a neat trick, but it isn't subtle. After the 1 they gave, they owe 48.50 to each parent.
Orangicus
48.50+48.50=97+3=100.
blopblopfish
He does owe each parent 49$. But the 2$ left are thoses he already gave them. The 1$ he kept is part of the two 49$ (aka the 98$)
Orangicus
What? No. He spent 48.50 per parent (97 total), leaving 3. One to each parent. 99. One for self. 100.
blopblopfish
That's true. But the second part (where the trick is) is about the money he owes them, not the money he spent :) so technically that 1/2
blopblopfish
is 49$. Not that I want to argue or anything, it would be childish
Orangicus
You aren't wrong. We're just solving in different ways.