Usually when the phrase "n times less" is used, in which n is the number of times less, the intended interpretation is 1/n times as much.

Using this interpretation the calculations are as follows:

Sue: 1/4 x $100 = $25

Bob: 1/2 x $100 = $50

LaTasha: 1/1 x $100 = $100

The above interpretation does not make sense literally. How can LaTasha spend 1 time less than Tom and still spend exactly the same amount as Tom? Wouldn't $100 be zero times less than what Tom spent? But 1/0 is undefined! Note, several posters used the "1/n times" interpretation for "4 times less" and "2 times less" and used a completely different calculation for "1 time less".

A literal interpretation of "n times less" would mean the original amount minus n times the original amount. Interpreting "n times less" literally, the calculations are as follows:

Sue: $100 - 4 x $100 = - $300

Bob: $100 - 2 x $100 = - $100

LaTasha: $100 - 1 x $100 = $0

Interesting that 2 posters used the "1/n times as much" interpretation for Sue and Bob, but the literal interpretation for LaTasha.

I don't see the inconsistency and I didn't use fractions.

ls

"4 times less" is N x 0.25. "2 times less" is N x 0.5 and "1 time less", which is not a common phrase in English, I interpreted to mean "equal to" (100 = 100), so subtract 100 from 100, equals zero.