|
|
Click here for CAT 2016 Percentile & Call Predictor
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.
|
|
|||||||||||||