Profit, Loss & Discount
🔒 Log in to trackSame Selling Price: One Profit, One Loss
🔒 Log in to trackTwo articles sold at the same price, one at x% profit and the other at x% loss, always end in a net loss:
Why: total . The loss is small but never zero.
If asked for amounts, reconstruct each CP by dividing the common SP by its chip.
Detailed notes
The setup
Two articles are sold for the same price: one at a profit of x%, the other at a loss of x%. Most people guess "no profit no loss". The answer is always a net loss.
The net loss formula
20% and 20% → 4% loss. 25% → . 10% → 1%. → .
Why there must be a loss
Loss% and gain% act on two different cost prices. The article sold at a loss has the bigger CP, so its percentage bites harder. With common SP S: and the excess of over S is always greater than the excess of S over , because dividing by a number below 1 moves further than multiplying by a number above 1.
Full reconstruction (when rupees are asked)
Two watches sold at ₹960 each, at 20% profit and 20% loss:
- ; .
- Total CP , total SP → loss of ₹2,000. The formula checks out.
Useful special cases
- SP ₹1,980 each at ±10%: CPs 1,800 and 2,200 → loss ₹40.
- SP ₹600 each at ±20%: CPs 500 and 750 → loss ₹50.
- The loss per cent depends only on x, never on the SP.
- Unequal percentages (say +20% and −17.5%) break the shortcut — rebuild both CPs from the SP and add.
Where the loss hides — a fuller look
Take SP ₹100 on each article at ±20%. The profitable article cost , so the gain is ₹16.67. The loss-making article cost , so the loss is ₹25. Same ₹100 selling price, but the loss (₹25) beats the gain (₹16.67) — the gap is exactly 4% of the total CP ₹208.33. The bigger the x, the wider the gap: at ±50% the loss is of CP.
A three-step routine for every version
- Name the common SP (call it S, or use the rupee value given).
- Recover each CP with its own chip: divide by for the gain item and by for the loss item.
- Add the CPs, add the SPs, and read off the profit or loss.
How the options are built
- "No profit, no loss" — the instinct answer; always wrong here.
- — halves the correct loss.
- — doubles it.
- The correct . For rupee versions, one option usually applies the loss per cent to the SP instead of the CP.
Two quick checks
- The loss per cent must depend only on x: change the SP and the percentage does not move.
- The loss item's CP is always the bigger one — if your reconstruction says otherwise, a chip was inverted.
Quick revision
- Equal ±x% on the same SP → loss .
- CPs: divide the common SP by .
- Loss in rupees = total CP − total SP; check it equals of total CP.
- The result is never zero — "no profit no loss" is the trap.
Types of questions asked
Every way this subtopic shows up in exams — how to recognise it, the formula or logic to use, and a solved example.
Type 1: Net result per cent for equal gain and loss on the same SPvery common3 practice Q
'Two articles sold at the same price, one at x% profit and the other at x% loss — the overall result?'
- Compute — a loss, never zero.
- Spot the "no profit no loss" option and reject it.
- For a fractional x (), square the fraction.
Why: the loss-side CP is larger, so its percentage dominates.
Example: Two articles are sold at the same price, one at 25% profit and the other at 25% loss. The net result?
Loss of the total CP.
Type 2: Loss in rupees (reconstruct both cost prices)very common4 practice Q
The common SP is given in rupees; the total loss (or total CP) is asked.
- Divide the SP by and by to get the two CPs.
- Total CP − total SP = the loss in rupees.
- Verify: loss ÷ total CP must equal .
Why: rupee answers need the actual cost prices, which the SP recovers.
Example: Two mobiles are sold at ₹960 each, one at 20% profit and the other at 20% loss. The total loss?
CPs 800 and 1200 → total 2000; SPs 1920 → loss ₹80 (4% of CP).
Type 3: Same SP with unequal profit and loss percentagescommon2 practice Q
One at a% profit, the other at b% loss with a ≠ b, same SP — the overall result in rupees or per cent.
- Build each CP from the common SP with its own chip.
- Add the CPs; compare with the total SP.
- Divide by the total CP for the net per cent.
Why: unequal percentages break the shortcut.
Example: Two tables are sold at ₹1,155 each — one at a 10% profit, the other at a 17.5% loss. The net result?
CPs 1050 and 1400 → total 2450; SPs 2310 → loss ₹140.
Type 4: Find the common SP or the profit per cent from the total lossoccasional2 practice Q
The total loss in rupees (or the total CP) is given; the common selling price or x is asked.
- Write both CPs in terms of the common SP: .
- Total loss = that sum − 2S.
- Set the loss equal to the rupee value and solve for S (or for x).
Why: the loss in rupees is a fixed fraction of the total CP, so any one of loss, S or x gives the rest.
Example: Two articles are sold at the same price, one at 20% profit and the other at 20% loss. The total loss is ₹50. The selling price of each?
CP total ; loss → .
Formulas
Shortcut tricks
⚡ The x²/100 reflex
Same SP, opposite equal % → straight to the loss formula.
Example: Two mobiles are sold for ₹1,200 each — one at a 25% profit and the other at a 25% loss. Find the overall per cent loss.
Loss% . (Verify: CPs 960 and 1,600, total 2,560; SP 2,400; loss 160 = 6.25%.)
⚡ Reconstruct both CPs, then total
Divide the common SP by each chip.
Example: Two articles are sold for ₹1,680 each; one at 20% profit, the other at 20% loss. Find the net loss in rupees.
CPs: and ; total 3,500 vs SP 3,360 ⇒ loss ₹140 (4%).
Where students lose marks
Concluding 'no profit no loss' because the percentages cancel — the base amounts differ, so there is always a loss.
Using when the profit and loss percentages are unequal — reconstruct CPs instead.
Reporting the loss per cent as the loss amount (₹140 is not 140%).
Dividing SP by the wrong chip (profit article: divide by 1 + x/100, loss article: by 1 − x/100).
Practice sets — 13 questions
Sets of 10, mixed across the question types above. Each answer comes with a step-by-step explanation.
Topic test · 13 questions
Suggested time 9 min · wrong answers go to your mistake notebook automatically.