|
Click here for CAT 2016 Percentile & Call Predictor
Note on the alleged leak of CAT 2016 questions
CAT 2016 Comprehensive Analysis
CAT 2016 Slot 1 Comprehensive Analysis
CAT 2016 Cut-offs
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.
|
Area
|
Topic
|
No. of Qs
|
Good Attempts
|
|
Reading Comprehension
|
5 passages
|
24
|
18-20
|
|
Verbal Ability
|
Para-Formation Questions
|
4
|
2
|
|
Para-Formation Odd Man Out
|
3
|
1-2
|
|
Para Summary
|
3
|
2
|
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.
|
Area
|
Topic
|
No. of Questions
|
Good Attempts
|
|
Data Interpretation
|
Technical/Non-Technical
|
4
|
2
|
|
Bank model
|
4
|
2
|
|
Venn diagram
|
4
|
2
|
|
Experts, products and features
|
4
|
1-2
|
|
Logical Reasoning
|
Water supply
|
4
|
1-2
|
|
Restaurant ratings
|
4
|
1-2
|
|
Coding
|
4
|
2
|
|
Conference rooms
|
4
|
2
|
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.
|
Area
|
Topic
|
Description
|
No. of Questions
|
Good Attempts
|
|
Quantitative Ability
|
Geometry & Mensuration
|
|
6
|
2-3
|
|
Progressions
|
|
2
|
1
|
|
Numbers
|
|
6
|
2-3
|
|
Arithmetic
|
AMA, TW, CI, TD, P&L, Ratio, Equations
|
13
|
8-9
|
|
Algebra
|
QE, Logs, Inequalities, Progressions, Coord. Geometry, Surds
|
4
|
2
|
|
P&C
|
|
3
|
1
|
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 18-20.
| 
