A bank customer had Rs. 100 in his account. He then made 6 withdrawals, totalling Rs. 100. He kept a record of these withdrawals, and the balance remaining in the account, as follows: (See the following table). When he added up the columns as above, he assumed that he must owe Re. 1 to the bank. Was he right in making this inference from the data?

Take a closer look at the data provided in the table:

The table shows that the customer had Rs. 100 in his account initially and made a total of 6 withdrawals amounting to Rs. 100. The table did not show that the customer made any deposits or added any interest to the account during this time.

The "Debit" column shows the amount of each withdrawal, while the "Credit" column is not present, suggesting that no money was added to the account. The "Balance" column shows the remaining balance in the account after each withdrawal.

When we add up the "Debit" column, we get a total of Rs. 100, which matches the total amount of the withdrawals. However, there is no  "Credit" column, so the total credit is zero. When we subtract the total debit from the total credit, we get a balance of -Rs. 100. This means that the customer owes Rs. 100 to the bank.

However, the customer inferred that he owes only Re. 1 to the bank. This inference is incorrect, as the total balance owed to the bank is -Rs. 100, not -Rs. 1. Therefore, the customer was not right in making this inference from the data.