Maharashtra MBA/MMS CET 2020 – Paper Pattern and Analysis

Analysis of Maharashtra MBA CET 2020 Slot 3

Maharashtra MBA CET 2020 Details

• Date : 15^th March 2020 (Sunday)
• Slot 3 : 10:00 am to 12:30 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 2020 Paper Pattern

Section wise Analysis

Section 1: Logical and Critical Reasoning:

This section followed the same pattern as that of slots 1 and 2. i.e. more than 50% of the questions are from analytical puzzles. With respect to difficulty level also it was similar to that of the first two slots. A careful choice of questions would enable the candidates to maximise the number of attempts. In this slot also an attempt of 40-42 questions in 60 mins would have been a good strategy.

There were 38 questions on arrangements in six different sets. Input/Output and Coding & Decoding sets, which were given in first slot but not in the second slot, were given in the third slot. The set on Input Output was easy.Also, there was one set on Direction Sense. The same strategy in choosing the question, suggested for the first two slots is also applicable here. The order could be: Analytical Reasoning, Critical/Verbal Reasoning and then the Analytical puzzles. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.

Analytical Puzzles:

This area had the maximum number of questions. There were many regular type questions like Linear Arrangement, Circular Arrangement, Distribution and Vertical Arrangement. There were total 6 Sets. The sets on circular arrangement combined with blood relation were comparatively more difficult and should not have been attempted. The remaining five sets were of moderate difficulty level. In each set two cases arise and at the end one case would get eliminated based on given conditions. All conditions given were in the proper order connecting each other. Out of these one could have attempted 3 to 4 sets in the following order: two Distribution arrangement Sets, one vertical arrangement set, one comparison arrangement set. Thus, 24 out of the 38 questions were doable in the given time limit. However, attempting all 38 could have consumed a lot of time. Instead of that, one could have attempted analytical reasoning first and then utilized the remaining time for tackling analytical puzzles. Certain types of sets were predicted by T.I.M.E. and were included in our end course workshops and AMMCETs. This would have made life easier for our students.

Analytical Reasoning:

Deductions: Four statements were given, followed by two conclusions. There were no statements of the type Some As are not B. There were conclusions involving possibility. Any student, well-versed with the basic concepts would have been able to answer all the questions accurately.

Logical Inequalities: There were four questions. In each question, the data was given in inequality format. There were two statements of four variables each followed by two conclusions. These were must-attempt questions.

Coding – Decoding: These were usual types of questions where four statements were given with their codes and by checking common word and common code, one could have answered them. In few questions additional data was given to answer the question. These were the easiest questions in this section and one couldn’t have afforded not to attempt these questions.

Miscellaneous: There were three individual questions which were very easy.

Data Sufficiency:

All data sufficiency questions were Analytical Puzzles based. Though they were manageable, they were time consuming. One could have skipped them and would have attempted Analytical Reasoning questions.

Critical/Verbal Reasoning :

This sub section had a total of 9 Q of which 5 were Verbal Reasoning and 4 Critical Reasoning. There were questions on

• Weakening the Argument
• Assumptions and Inferences
• Reasons

Each of these questions, though easy, was lengthy too and hence time consuming. The questions on inferences and weakening were moderately difficult. Apart from these, there was a question on situation analysis and identifying an instance of reckless behavior as described in the passage. A well-prepared student could have got around 6-7 correct out of 9 in 10-15 minutes.

Section 2 : Abstract Reasoning

Students found this section easy as compared to the other sections. There were no surprises in this section. Questions were based on five figure series, analogies, and similar pair. The difficulty level of this section was east to Moderate. One could have easily attempted around 17-19 questions in 20 minutes. Preferred order of attempting questions will be analogy, similar Pair and series. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.

Section 3: Quantitative Aptitude:

Students felt that the difficulty level of this section ranged from easy to moderate. They said that the DI sets were of easy to moderate difficulty level. More than a few quant questions were moderately lengthy and should have been skipped. A good student would be able to solve around 28 to 30 questions in 45 mins. Preferred order of solving questions in sections would have been

• BODMAS
• Quantitative Comparison
• Data Interpretation
• Quant

The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.

Quantitative Ability

Students reported that most of the questions in Quantitative Ability were from the Arithmetic section and the data was straightforward. Percentages given the few questions were in decimals. The better the clarity of concepts, the easier a student would have found it to answer. Also, enough practice would have enabled a student to answer the questions faster and with a high accuracy. Students who didn’t bother much with practicing would have found this section difficult. Also, the overall time taken per question in this section would have been slightly more. One should have attempted the DI, BODMAS and Quantitative comparison questions before attempting the Quantitative Ability questions.

Quantitative Comparison:

There were 10 questions on Quantitative comparison (Arithmetic - 5 questions, Quadratic equations - 5 questions). According to the students Data Comparison questions based on arithmetic topics were lengthy. Quadratic Equations could have been factorized easily. One could work on signs of coefficients to decide comparison without solving.

Number Series:

There were 5 questions, out of which 2 questions were doable. In each question a series was given with one number wrong which had to be found. Most questions had only two- and three-digit numbers.

Data Interpretation:

There were three sets. So compared to CET 2019, it was one set less. All the sets were different in nature. Most other questions were straight forward and involved basic calculations. Knowing the basic concepts of Percentage would have been helpful in solving all three sets. Considering the difficulty level and amount of time required, one should have attempted DI questions before Quantitative Ability questions. Instead of attempting all questions in each set it would have been better to attempt selected questions from each set. In that way 12 questions with 100 percent accuracy would have been a good attempt.

Students have reported that the Verbal section was easy, but time consuming. There were 2 RC Passages, totaling to 15 Questions (1P*8 Q, 1P*7Q). Under Vocabulary, there was a Cloze Test (1P*7Q) and replacing a word with a given phrase. Under grammar, there were questions on Probable starters, Sentence Connectors, Match the columns to create complete sentences and Tense usage. There were some new question types too. There were questions wherein 3 sentences were given, divided into 2 parts each. There were a few words in bold. The 1^st question needed the student to choose the right order. The 2nd one asked in how many questions the statements were already in order. Para Formation questions were in the NMAT format, with options such as CBDEA, ACDBE, etc.

As mentioned earlier, these questions ranged from Easy to Moderately difficult, but were very time consuming as a lot of data was given. A well-prepared student should have attempted 30-35 questions in 35-40 minutes.

The breakup was reported as follows:

Based on the student feedback on the overall, the paper can be classified as easy to moderately but lengthy. From what the students have reported, the correct selection of questions is the key to a good score. Since there wasn’t any element of surprise in the type of questions, 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 118-123 questions. However, students aiming for the top colleges should have attempted around 130-135 questions with good accuracy.

NOTE-. It has been mentioned in the hall ticket that the scores will be adjusted to get a normalized score.