If there was no insurance he would lose 1250

insurance reimbursed (1250-350)*3/4 = 900 *3/4 = 225*3 = 675

combined amount paid in insurance 125*3 =375

not reimbursed

1250 - 675 = 575

total actual loss (375+575)= 950

hence difference = 1250 - 950 = 300

Other things remaining same,

amount in insurance = 125*4 = 500

loss = 500 + 575 = 1075


hence difference = 1250 - 1075 = 175

what is OA?

cubicle_bound_misfit wrote: combined amount paid in insurance 125*3 =375
hence difference = 1250 - 950 = 300

Why did you calculated only for 3 quarters. I think it should 4.

125*4 = 500

1250 - 350 = 900 * 3/4 = 675

1250 - 675 = 575

575 + 500 = 1075

1250 - 1075 = 175

OA?

I think the answer is 350 D)

Amt paid in theft insurance = 125 * 4 = 500

75 % of amt above 1250 covered i.e 75% of 900 = 675 covered

Amount not covered by insurance = 1250 - 675 = 525

Amt paid in theft insurance + Amount not covered by insurance - amt above 1250 covered(which is the amount he would have lost since this was what was covered)

= 500 + 525 - 675 = 350

I misunderstood the question I think. I think it is 175

But here's how we could get it.

Amt paid in theft insurance = 125 * 4 = 500

75 % of amt above 1250 covered i.e 75% of 900 = 675 covered

Amount not covered by insurance = 1250 - 675 = 575

Total amount not covered by insurance is 575 +350(no insurance coverage for this) = 925

So Amt paid in theft insurance + Total amount not covered by insurance -
Amt he would have lost if there was no insurance

= 500 + 925 - 1250
= 1425 - 1250
= 175 $

This was a good one!!!