|
|
Click here for CAT 2016 Percentile & Call Predictor
CAT 2016 Comprehensive Analysis
In line with the expectations that students have about the CAT exam throwing
surprises at them, the CAT 2016 did surprise them. However, the surprise factor
may hit the students a little late. As per the feedback that we received from
the students, there were quite a few doable questions across sections this year,
as there were last year. However, the number of tough questions seems to have
gone up significantly. The presence of easy questions would make the students
feel that the section is not very tough. However, many would have felt it to be
an arduous task to push their overall attempts beyond a certain level. This is
because any further move beyond this was being blocked by the difficult
questions that were present aplenty across the sections.
The order of questions and options for the questions was different for different
students.
With many tricky questions and the added possibility of silly mistakes, the
cutoffs this year could move south, compared to CAT 2015.
One significant observation that could be gathered from our expert analysis this
year is that the level of difficulty of each of the three sections was very
close across the two slots. This was unlike CAT 2015, where there was observable
difference in difficulty level in two of the sections (LRDI & VARC).
Before we dig deeper into the discussion, let's quickly look at the test
pattern.
Comprehensive analysis - Slot 1
Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension Analysis
The Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension section is one section that most
aspirants dread on account of its fickle ways. If in one year the RCs were
lengthy which made them time consuming there were other years in which the
questions were mostly inferential in nature which made the paper tough. However,
in CAT2016 the passages were of moderate length and were from topics which are
considered to be interesting reads – Economics, Environment, Linguistic Studies
etc. However, the joy was short lived as the answer options were extremely close
and aspirants had to read the relevant paragraphs multiple times to get to the
correct option. Not only did this increase the stress levels but also took its
toll on the countdown clock – aspirants ran out of time and this is one factor
that would reduce the overall attempts in this section. The questions in Verbal
ability area did not have any negative marking as they were of the non-MCQ type
which could have motivated students to attempt them. The Para-formation questions turned out to be some of
the toughest ones seen in recent years due to the absence of anwer choices. For
most aspirants, it would have been a herculean task to identify the starter and
find relevant connections. Aspirants who attempted these questions can expect to
see low accuracy and low scores from these questions. The Para summary questions
can be classified as moderate and should have been attempted to boost the score.
Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning Analysis
CAT 2015 had set a new benchmark in terms of difficulty level for the LRDI
section. Aspirants who had worked furiously post this would have benefitted the
most as CAT 2016 set a new benchmark. The difficulty level of the Data
Interpretation & Logical Reasoning section certainly went up one notch in
CAT2016. The DI sets were not difficult in terms of interpretation but the Qs
more than made up for this – the Qs were tricky and it wasn’t easy to solve more
than 2-3 Qs in each set. Students
who had persisted throught the AIMCATs would have kept their balance and found
this section less intimidating.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability Analysis
The Quant section had 34 Qs with around 8 Qs of non-MCQ type. The number of
questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered
to be moderate-difficult. This was offset by the large number of Arithmetic
questions which would have helped aspirants increase their attempts.
The low weightage trend for numbers continued this yearin the morning slot. All
in all, this section can be classified as being slightly higher than moderate
level (maybe a moderate plus).
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 19-21.
Comprehensive analysis - Slot 2
Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension Analysis
Known to be a silent killer, the VARC section of CAT 2016 may live up to its
name once again. It is named so because unlike in QA or DILR students who expect
very good scores may see their expectations ruined once the scores are revealed.
With many readable and not-so-tough RC passages, the VARC section may have
appeared very crackable, despite the tough VA questions. However, the close
choices in the RC questions and the completely new question types - like“Main
purpose of the passage” - made this section tougher than what it seemed to be.
The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-man-out and Para summary were quite
tough to crack especially given that there were no options to guide the
students. Lack of negative marking for these questions was definitely a plus for
the students.
Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning Analysis
The comeback of tough DILR sections seen in CAT2015 continued in CAT 2016 and
the rampage caused by it would have left many IIM aspirants licking their
wounds, unless they have prepared well expecting a tough DILR on the back of CAT
2015. This was even more important as the toughness of this section seems to
have only increased further. One factor that the students could have taken
solace from is that the difficult sets were clearly unsolvable
right from the outset, helping them
drop out of those fairly soon.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability Analysis
The Quant section had 34 Qs with around 6 Qs of non-MCQ type. As was seen in the
morning slot, the number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and
some of them can be considered to be moderate-difficult. P&C saw a very strong
come back this year along with Numbers, which was unlike what was seen in the
first slot. There were a very good number of questions from Arithmetic, most of
which could have been quickly solved by a student with moderate - good level of
preparation.
There were a few cases where the mathematical symbols could be interpreted
incorrectly.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 18-20.
Cut offs
With the paper being difficult compared to the CAT 2015 aross sections, the cutoffs are expected to drop. The drop is expected to be significant in case of the DILR section.
The cut-offs for the two slots are expected to be as below. As both the slots saw papers of similar difficulty level, the cutoffs are being put up in common.
Sectional Cutoff
Overall Cutoff
Note: While the CAT website and the test instructions page mentioned 3 marks for every correct answer and a negative mark for every wrong answer, within the test, the individual question and the “Question paper” view showed 1 mark for every correct answer and -0.33 for every wrong answer. The cutoffs predicted above are according to the scoring pattern mentioned in the website & the test instructions page (+3 and -1). |
|
|||||||||||||