CAT 2024 was conducted smoothly by the IIMs and was on expected lines. While there were some students who faced some technical issues during the test, the administrators were able to help them in quick time. However, it appears that the test admins were able to resolve this in a jiffy and that no student lost time on account of these minor glitches.

However, CAT 2024 did throw a few surprises in terms of the composition of the sections. The number of questions in the Verbal Ability and Quantitative Ability sections remained the same as last year. The surprise came in the form of changes in the Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning section, where the questions have marginally increased from 20 last year to 22 this year. While the change on the surface of it appears to be minor but it seems to have given much-needed relief to CAT aspirants by way of an increase in the number of sets.

CAT 2024 did retain the overall structure of the exam as was seen in the last couple of years but has also witnessed some changes in question types in the Verbal section as well an increase in the number of sets in the Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning section.

The following was the pattern of examination in the first slot:

The evaluation scheme was the same as that of the earlier years - Three marks for a correct answer and a penalty of a mark for a wrongly marked MCQ. Non-MCQs had no negative marks.

The difficulty, overall, for CAT 2024 in the morning slot was slightly on the lower side compared to that of all the slots of the two previous CATs.

Section-wise analysis

Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension:

The VARC section had 24 questions in the morning slot, 16 from Reading Comprehension and 8 from Verbal Ability. There was no major change in the pattern or number of questions from the previous year.

The RC passages were four in number, with four questions per passage. There were a good number of questions that were based on the overall passage and would have made answering such questions tougher.

The passage on ‘Unlikely Survival Story of Australia’s Bandicoots’ was easy to read and can be classified as moderate in terms of the difficulty level of the questions.

The passage on ‘Accessibility of Movie Content in the Modern Age’ was a moderately difficult read but one that could have been attempted by a large section of aspirants on account of its contemporary content.

The passage on ‘Homo Economicus’ was amongst the more difficult ones in this section and had many questions where the options were very close and difficult to eliminate. Those attempting this RC passage might see low-moderate returns given the difficulty level.

The passage on ‘Crafts & Manufacturing’ was one of the more difficult ones in this section and this was compounded by the extremely close answer options and tricky questions. An ideal approach would have been to omit this passage, which would have been the go-to mode for most students who would have avoided this on accounts of the difficult readability of the passage.

In the Verbal Ability section this year, there were two questions on Odd Man Out and three questions each on Para Summary and Sentence Placement. The Sentence Placement questions were moderately difficult. An ideal approach would be to have attempted two of them accurately. The Para Summary questions were difficult, with the themes being difficult to read and the summaries being very brief and to the point.

The distribution of the questions in the Verbal Ability area is as below –

A net score of 20-22 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning:

The DILR section of the morning slot would have been a welcome breather for most aspirants on account of the increased number of questions as well the increase in the number of sets. What this would have done is to give everyone more opportunities to select the right set and spend quality time on solving it. Those who had done precisely this would have seen their attempts increasing with a corresponding increase in accuracy as well (given that the right sets were chosen!!).

This year, there were 5 sets, with 3 of them having four questions each and 2 sets with five questions each. Two of the sets with four questions were of moderate level of difficulty and should have been attempted. As was expected, the two sets with five questions were difficult to comprehend and would have been virtual minefields had anyone stepped on them. The set on the ‘Candle-Stick Pattern of Stocks’ was daunting to look at but had some of the easiest questions in the whole section and would have been easy pickings. The set on ‘Star Ratings of Bloggers’ required some logic and could have been solved if one persisted in working it out. The sets on ‘Countries Visited’ and ‘Elections’ were quite lengthy and could have landed one in trouble. The set on ‘Tournament’ was a very convoluted one that could have tested the best of the aspirants.

Unlike last year, this year’s paper also did have two sets that were quite doable, and which could have contributed to a high score and consequently higher cut-offs

The set-wise details are as below:

A net score of 16–18 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

Quantitative Ability Section

The Quant section retained the same structure from last year, including the non-MCQs. The paper had 22 Questions, with 8 non-MCQs. However, based on the student feedback, this year’s paper was slightly easier than last year’s.

This section had a good number of ‘Arithmetic’ based questions, which would have come as a relief for those who dread this section. Quite a few of the questions could have been solved by the process of reverse engineering (through the choices!!). The difficulty level of the paper did not go down too much on account of the presence of moderate-difficult level of questions from Algebra. Some of the questions from Algebra were difficult, with the approaches being either not straightforward or time-consuming. This may have prevented students from reaching the end of the section and maximising their attempts. Even those with a lot of practice in QA would not have found it easy to score high, given the tediousness involved in some of the questions.

The distribution of questions in this section across topics is as below:

A net score of 15-17 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

Overall, a net score of 58-60 should be sufficient to get 90 percentile.