(OT) Solve this

Put another way;

You start with no shirt and no money. Then you are lent the $100, $50 from each parent, therefore you now have

Assets
Cash $100
Total $100

Liabilities
Owe Dad $50
Owe Mum $50
Total $100

Then you buy a shirt for $97, so

Assets
Cash $3
Shirt $97
Total $100

Liabilities
Owe Dad $50
Owe Mum $50
Total $100

Then you pay back Mum and Dad $1 each, so

Assets
Cash $1
Shirt $97
Total $98

Liabilities
Owe Dad $49
Owe Mum $49
Total $98

The confusion comes from assuming that $100 is still the balancing figure and not $98, as $100 relates to the initial debt which ends the scenario as a figure of $98. The $1 you keep is an asset not a liability (debt) and is therefore not relevant to that figure. The question is deliberately worded to confuse!

Apologies to accounting purists for showing the shirt as an asset but I didn't want to confuse my explanation by going the p&l route

 

There is no other dollar. The debt reduced from $100 to $98. Which is what you give back.

If they were to give you back the dollar you gave them before the $49, the debt would go back up $100.

I like these questions.

 

Yeah how do you show depreciation on a footie top when they'll bring out a new one next year. By months???

 

You could have just kept it simple like I have above......

This is a clear indication of our dispute about NUFC finances. I work it all out in my head but then try and explain it as simple as possible.

Not having a go, just amused me.

 

Makes it all the harder for her when the dippy boy friend isn't much good at explaining things.

 

Why could his mum and dad not just loaned him $48.50 each and saved all the ****ing hassle???

 

Good call. Or just steal the c*nt.

 

The confusion seems to derive from adding the debt and only one of the asset balances and was instantly clear to me. But the other answers hadn't cleared this up and some comments suggested that some still didn't follow. I wanted to show it step by step to make it clear. Fair enough?

Our dispute about the NUFC finances comes more from the fact that you guess at figures and then treat them as fact than anything else. Although your willingness to ignore other pertinent figures that don't fit in with your pre-conceived ideal result comes a close second.

I'm also not having a go

 

Yep, that is Fair enough. But some people cant be bothered to read each step by step. Just tell it like it is, very boldly, very plainly. Like I did. Just saying.

Our dispute was because I generalised figures, not put in anal step by step account for every penny like yourself. My figures come from previous years by looking at the information available and making an estimation on what they would be. Just like you.

You can scrutinise all you like, it gets to the same answer. My way is easier to see and understand. But you take it as ignorance and lack of knowledge. It isn't. The same basic information has been acknowledged, understood, broken down, totalled up, and then explained so the masses can understand it and not just accountants.

Also not having a go

 

This is it.

 

Not being funny like but I sussed that one straight away. Like AG said, there is no missing dollar.

 

Exactly, if you are talking cash movement there is still £100 (shop 97, me 1, dad 1, mum 1). The question tries to blend the questions; how much is owing to mum & dad and where is the cash. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

So the easiest way to understand is to say; the debt of $100 changed to $98 when you gave $1 each out. So $49 + $49 = the new $98 debt.

Im sure everyone can understand that.

 

It's like the old trick of dividing 100 by 3 (33.333333333...) then times that result by 3, and you would hope to get 100, but don't... It's 99.9999999999....

 

I prefer Donkey Toons explanation as he gets extra points for showing his workings.

Anyway. Who **** in your corn flakes this morning?

 

The Honey Monster. Hes a right c*nt