Analysis of Maharashtra MBA CET 2019 Slot 4

Analysis of Maharashtra MBA CET 2019 Slot 4.

Maharashtra MBA CET 2019 Details

  • Date : 10th March 2019 (Sunday)
  • Slot : 2:00 pm to 4:30 pm
  • Total Number of Questions : 200
  • Total Time allotted : 150 minutes
  • No. of Choices per question : 5 choices
  • No. of Sections : 4
  • Negative Marks : No negative marking

CET 2019 Paper Pattern

Area No. of Questions
1 Logical and Critical Reasoning 75
2 Abstract Reasoning 25
3 Quantitative Aptitude 50
4 Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension 50
Total 200

Section wise Analysis

Section 1: Logical and Critical Reasoning:

According to student feedback, the section was very time consuming. Overall difficulty of the section was moderate but solving the questions in the stipulated time was a task. Skipping the lengthy questions would have helped and the time could be utilized to solve other sections. Solving 40 Questions in 60 minutes could have been a good strategy. If a student found this section difficult, he/she could have left it for the last and focused on scoring in other sections. But a minimum attempt of 40 questions was necessary to get good overall score, for which the student had to dedicate at least 60 minutes time.

As per their report, questions were based on Analytical Reasoning topics like Blood Relation, Coding Decoding, Input Output, Data Sufficiency, Direction sense. As many as 46 Questions were from Analytical Puzzles. Around 9 questions were on Verbal Reasoning. A good strategy would have been to attempt Questions on Analytical reasoning first, then Verbal Reasoning and then Analytical Puzzles. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.

Logical Reasoning
Topic No. of questions Easy Moderate Difficult
Analytical Puzzles
Distribution 12 6 6
Linear Arrangement 17 6 5 6
Circular/Square Arrangement 7 1 6
Floor Arrangement 6 6
Comparison 5 5
Sub-Total 47 12 23 12
Analytical Reasoning
Input Output 6 6
Deductions 7 5 2
Coding-Decoding 2 2
Data Sufficiency 4 2 2
Sub-Total 19 9 10
Critical / Verbal Reasoning 9 7 1 1
TOTAL 75 28 34 13

Analytical Puzzles:

This area had the maximum number of Questions. Majority of the questions were Linear Arrangement and Distribution.

The set on Linear Arrangements included – 2 rows facing each other; one had blood relations and one had several people facing north.

The set on Square Arrangement had 4 people at corners and 4 in the middle. The middle people liked flowers and corner people liked colors. It was a moderately difficult set.

There were 2 distribution puzzles, one was moderately difficult and one was difficult.

A floor arrangement set was moderately difficult and could be solved in 8-10 minutes. A good strategy would be to solve 4 puzzles out of 8, else it would have been extremely time consuming to solve more.

Analytical Reasoning:

Deductions: 3 questions having 3 statements and 2 conclusions were asked and the level of the questions was easy Also, 4 questions had 3 statements and 3 conclusions. They were also of easy level

Input Output: 6 questions were asked on Input Output. Input had word series. Input for all the questions was same. These were the must – attempt questions. They were of a moderate level.

Coding – Decoding: There were only 2 individual questions. They were of an easy level.

Data Sufficiency: 2 Questions asked were of moderate level of difficulty which included circular arrangements and direction sense. There were 2 questions of easy level, one on coding and other on linear.

Critical/ Verbal Reasoning:

  • This sub section had a total of 9 Qs:
  • There were questions on
  • Statements and Assumptions-1
  • Parallel reasoning-1
  • Statements and Inferences -2
  • Course of Action-3
  • Finding the reason-1
  • Strengthening-1

One inference question was of a high difficulty level and the assumption question was moderately difficult. The others were easy, so a good student could have attempted all 9 questions and got at least 7-8 correct in 8-10 minutes.

Section 2 : Abstract Reasoning

Compared to last year, this year questions on Dissimilar pair were asked instead of Similar pair. The best strategy would have been to attempt Analogy and Dissimilar Pair questions first. Compared to Slot 3, Analogy and Dissimilar Pair questions were of a moderate difficulty level. One could attempt 11 Questions of Analogy and Dissimilar pairs with good Accuracy. Many Series questions were time consuming, the online mode making them more difficult to solve. One could have selected 5 to 6 easy questions from series and attempted them. So overall 16 to 17 questions would have been a good attempt.

Abstract Reasoning (Non-verbal Reasoning)
Topic No. of questions Easy Moderate Difficult
Series (Find Next Fig.) 12 5 2 5
Analogies 7 3 2 2
Odd pair out (Dissimilar Pair) 6 3 3 0
TOTAL 25 11 7 7

Section 3: Quantitative Aptitude:

After Initial few slots reporting a difficult Quant Section, in this final slot, Quant was of moderate difficulty level. One of the reasons was the absence of DS Questions. Also 5 Questions of approximations and 5 Questions of Quantitative Comparison were present, which would have helped in getting more accuracy in less time. However, there were a few DI sets which acted as speed breakers and should have been avoided. So again, selection of right questions in the correct order was important.

Quantitative Ability
Topic No. of questions Easy Moderate Difficult
Quantitative Ability
Ratio and Percentages 1 1
SICI 1 1
Time and Distance 2 1 1
Time and Work 1 1
AMA 1 1
Mensuration 1 1
Simple Equations 1 1
Profit and Loss, Partnership 2 1 1
Probability 1 1
Approximation 5 5
Sub-total 16 8 8
Data Interpretation
Caselets 6 6
Table 5 2 2 1
Bar Graph 6 3 3
Pie Chart 6 4 2
Sub-total 23 9 13 1
Number Series 6 2 2 2
Quantitative Comparison 5 4 1
TOTAL 50 23 24 3

The overall difficulty of the Section can be classified as moderate. A judicious selection of questions would have ensured that a student would be able to attempt around 35 questions from this section with high accuracy.

Quantitative Ability

According to student feedback, the Quantitative Ability were of easy to moderate difficulty Level. The questions were mostly from Arithmetic topics. The usual focus areas like Percentages, Profit Loss, Time and Distance, Time and Work and AMA were tested. There was one question on probability, but it was easy. Most of the questions were of the standard types. This year 5 questions on Approximations were asked in slot 2 and Slot 4. They were based on BODMOS, Square, Square Root and Percentages. Proper Approximation would have helped to solve these questions quickly. E.g. 79.96 % of 360.03 should have been calculated as 80 % of 360.If this had been done, the questions were pretty easy. 11 to 13 attempts including 5 questions of approximation would be considered as good attempt.

Number Series:

These questions were of mixed difficulty level. A good strategy would have been to spend around 1 min per question. With that students could have easily solved three questions and leave three questions.

Data Interpretation:

Like the previous slots, in this slot too there were four DI sets including one Caselet. Two Sets were very easy and one could have attempted all questions from them. The other caselet had very complicated data and should have been left completely. Also, the last set was difficult as additional data was given in each question making it time consuming. So, from that last set one could have attempted two questions in which less data was given. Overall 14 attempts were possible.

Quantitative Comparison:

These were easiest questions of this section. One could have solved all these 5 questions in 5 mins with all correct.

Section – 4: Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension

There were a few new question types, but the areas tested were not new. The way of presenting the questions was new. These new question formats needed a conceptual understanding of Grammar and Vocabulary. In addition, it was observed that there were 3 Reading Comprehension passages. Due to all these factors, the section was lengthier than usual and could be rated in the range of moderately difficult. A well-prepared student would have been able to attempt around 35 questions in 40 minutes and would have answered around 30-32 questions correctly. The combination of questions in this section was as follows:

Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension
Topic No. of questions Easy Moderate Difficult
Reading Comprehension
Passage 1 7 2 5 0
Passage 2 4 3 1 0
Passage 3 4 2 2 0
Sub-total 15 7 8 0
Cloze Test 7 0 7 0
Fill in the Blanks (3 blanks) (1 blank each to be filled with 1 word from the 5 options) – New format 3 3 0 0
Fill in the Blanks (2 blanks) (1 blank each to be filled with 1 word from the 5 options) – New format 2 2 0 0
Essence of the text (choose answer from the phrase given in the option) 1 1 0 0
Give a synonym to the characteristic of the person mentioned in the passage (New Format) 1 1 0 0
Synonym-Antonym Pair 1 1 0 0
Sub-total 15 8 7 0
Sentence correction (with blanks) (New Format) 5 0 0 5
Probable Starter (Two sentences needed to be joined using the 3 starters given) 3 0 0 3
Sub-total 8 0 0 8
Para Based Questions
Para Jumbles (New format) 12 12 0 0
Sub-Total 12 12 0 0
TOTAL 50 27 15 8

Some of the new question types were as follows:

  • Fill in the Blanks: In each question, there was a sentence with 3/2 blanks and 5 options. We had to choose the option that would fit in all blanks. This was a test of homonyms.
  • Give a synonym to describe the characteristic of the person: A short paragraph was given, describing the characteristics of a person. We had to choose the option that would encapsulate this in a single word.
  • Para Jumbles: Instead of complete sentences, partial sentences were given, which had to be arranged to create a complete paragraph. Also, one sentence in each question had a word/phrase in bold which was incorrect and had to be replaced with a correct option.

Based on the student feedback on the overall, the paper can be classified as moderately difficult. From what the students have reported, the correct selection of questions is the key to a good score. A judicious distribution of time and choice would have ensured a comfortable number of attempts with a good accuracy. A good student should have attempted around 110-115 questions. However, students aiming for the top colleges should have attempted around 115-120 questions. This slot seemed to be the most difficult amongst all slots. So, students might get a benefit of Normalization. Even by solving fewer questions, as compared to other slots, the overall score might increase.