MT1302
Bjork is a dealer is premium, vintage shoes. On 1st July, he sold only two pairs of shoes. One pair was a Cantabrian Albarcas while the other was an Espadriles. He earned 60% profit on the cost he bore for Cantabrian Albarcas and 90% profit on the cost for Espadrilles. His overall profit on his investment on the two pairs of shoes was 85%.
Select from the colunns Cantabrian Albarcas and Espadrilles amounts that Cantabrian Albarcas and Espadrilles, respectively, could have cost Bjork, consistent with the information provided above. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Let C stand for the original cost to Bjork of the 'C.A.' shoes, and E the original cost of the espadrilles (not sure of the source, btw, but please note that "espadrilles" is a plural noun—each individual shoe is
an espadrille—and contains a double 'L').
Bjork earns a 60% profit on the C.A.'s, which means that the consumer paid 160% of original cost = 1.6C for them (= the revenue from their sale).
Bjork earns a 90% profit on the espadrilles, which means that the consumer paid 190% of original cost = 1.9E for them (= revenue).
So, IN TOTAL for the two pairs combined,
Original cost to the business = C + E
Revenue from both sales = 1.6C + 1.9E
The total revenue represents an 85% profit over the original wholesale cost, or 185% of that cost. So,
1.6C + 1.9E = 1.85(C + E)
1.6C + 1.9E = 1.85C + 1.85E
0.05E = 0.25C
E = 5C
So the selling price of the espadrilles must have been 5 times the selling price of the C.A.'s. The only values in the table that have a 5:1 ratio are
$400 for the espadrilles and $80 for the C.A.'s.