CAT generates a lot of buzz and discussion every year for one simple reason: it is never the same, and it always has an ace up its sleeve, a new surprise every year. This year’s story was much the same. While this year’s VARC section was slightly more difficult compared to the VARC sections of the previous three years, QA came down a notch in difficulty level. LRDI section was also relatively easy compared to that of the previous year.

The overall structure of the paper is provided below.

The pattern of VARC section was along expected lines. There were no changes in the pattern compared to that of the previous year – four 5-Q passages and one 4-Q passage (with 10 VA questions split into 4 Para Formation Questions, 3 Odd One Out and 3 Para Summaries.)

However, the VARC section tightened the screws a little bit, after three years of easy VARC sections. While the pattern broadly remained the same – 24 RC questions and 10 VA questions – the difficulty level of the RC questions was a major digression from the difficulty levels previous years. One can say it was not a breeze even for those well-versed in the language.

The DILR section, contrary to all expectations, was lower in difficulty level compared to what test-takers have been used to facing in the previous years. While this doesn’t, by any stretch of imagination, mean that the section was easy, it wasn’t as challenging as it was in the last three years. While a couple of sets were relatively straight-forward, there were some sets which required a good deal of application. Identifying the easier, straight-forward sets in the paper would play a key role in boosting the score in this section.

The QA section didn’t spring any surprises either, with 34 questions from expected topics such as Arithmetic (Time, Work and Distance, P&L, Ratios, Equations, AMA and SI-CI), Geometry and Mensuration, Numbers, Algebra, Trigonometry and Permutations & Combinations. The difficulty level, one could say, was slightly lower than that of CAT 2018, but this section was by no means as easy as the QA section of CAT 2017. Further, the students who identified the easy questions and attempted those would have gained a significant advantage. A good number of questions also demanded the use of the on-screen calculator. It could be said that the section was, on the whole, of moderate difficulty level.

Overall, CAT 2019 appears of the same difficulty level as that of CAT 2018, with two sections (DILR and QA) being slightly on the easier side than those of CAT 2018, and one section (VARC) being significantly tougher.

Nevertheless, T.I.M.E. students would have felt at home with this year’s CAT given that several AIMCATs matched the sectional difficulty levels fairly accurately, thus giving the students a sense of comfort of having dealt with this before, not once or twice, but many times over. Students who had invested time in the AIMCAT analysis and CATStrat would have attempted this year’s CAT paper with utmost confidence.

Keep watching this space for more detailed analysis...

Slot 1 of CAT 2019 did not hold major surprises in terms of format/pattern. However, in terms of difficulty levels, it wasn’t on expected lines. The VARC section was tougher compared to that of CAT 2018. The DI & LR section and the QA section were relatively easy compared to the previous year, thereby offsetting the difficulty one might have faced in attempting the VARC section.

VARC

In CAT 2019, while there was no change in the pattern of the VARC section, the RC passages were not very easy to read, and neither were the questions direct.

The five RC passages were of moderate length and were from topics which are considered to be interesting, but, challenging reads – Literature (Aladdin), Culture (Folk Music), Environment (Emperor Penguins), Anthropology (Topophilia), and Sociology (Choice Anxiety/Influencers/Internet Shopping). The passages were complex in thought and language. Compared to last year’s VARC section, the passages this year were more structurally uniform in terms of length and the number of paras (4 to 5 paras).

The questions were multi-layered, and that added to the difficulty level of the RC section. Firstly, the options were longer than usual and closer to each other compared to the previous year’s RC questions. Secondly, the presentation of questions was novel, and a majority of these questions were critical reasoning-based and application-based. There were also questions based on figures of speech. There were very few specific-detail questions which could have been answered from memory. Interestingly, there were quite a few all-but-one/EXCEPT questions, a clear shift away from specific-detail questions.

However, the increase in difficulty level of RC (compared to CAT 2018) might have been slightly offset by the Verbal Ability Questions, which were relatively easy compared to those of CAT 2018. So, test-takers who have managed to ride the initial tide and gather themselves would have done well in the VA segment.

The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-One-out, were fairly simple to crack especially given that the PFQs had only four sentences. This made the four PFQ questions must-attempts. The sentences in many of these questions were not very long, reducing the difficulty level and making the questions appealing. The Odd-One-Out questions were relatively easy as well. The absence of negative marking for these questions was definitely a plus for the students. The level of difficulty of the Para Summary Questions this year ranged from easy to moderate. Two of the three Para Summary Questions had fairly short paras, and the options for these questions were not really close. The only difference was that the questions were worded as ‘Essence’ rather than ‘Author’s Position’.

To summarise, the VARC section was tougher when compared to that of CAT 2018.

A net score of 34 – 36 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

DI & LR

A difficult VARC section was offset by the DI & LR section of CAT 2019. It would have been a pleasant surprise for students considering that it was relatively easy compared to that of CAT 2018 (which in turn was easier than that of 2017).

The trick this year was in identifying the easier sets, and solving them quickly, there being a dividend for speed. Some of the DI sets were not difficult in terms of interpretation and the questions in these sets too were not tricky in nature. The number of LR-based sets was greater than that of the last two years. Only two out of the eight sets could be truly qualified as difficult in nature. The set on tournament was particularly very difficult, and the crime rates-based set appeared difficult too. On the other hand, the set based on Dancers and composers and the one on radar chart should definitely have been attempted. One digression from the norm was the absence of Venn Diagram-based sets in DI & LR section (although there was one question in the QA section).

Given the nature of the section, it was an advantage to the students with conceptual clarity and speed, as that would have helped them attempt more sets.

A net score of 30-32 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

QA

The QA section this year was slightly easier compared to that of CAT 2018, largely because there were enough number of doable questions, which weren’t time-consuming. Students who have the knack of segregating the difficult ones from the easier ones can succeed in optimising their score in such a paper.

Arithmetic ruled the roost with 14 questions, most of which ranged from easy to moderate and, hence, would have been to the students’ liking. Apart from that, Algebra had the second highest representation with as many as 11 questions, although they were quite challenging. Geometry and Mensuration too continued to be an important topic, as expected, with 6 questions. The surprising omission was that of Numbers, from which there was just a lone question. The declining weightage of topics from Modern Maths continued with just 1 question each from P & C and Venn Diagrams.

The interesting thing about this section was that there were easy questions and there were also a substantial number of difficult questions. So, while the average student would have found quite a few doable questions to be able to clear the cut-off, students aiming for high 90s would have probably found it challenging to solve the difficult ones.

A net score of 29-31 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

The afternoon session of CAT 2019 appeared to be on similar lines as the forenoon session, with only minor differences. As with the forenoon session, there was no change in pattern compared to CAT 2018 in any of the sections.

The VARC section was markedly more difficult compared to that of CAT 2018, with RCs proving to be quite challenging. The DI & LR section was marginally easier compared to that of CAT 2018. The QA section too was relatively easy compared to that of CAT 2018.

The overall structure of the paper is provided below.

The RC part of the VARC section was on the denser side, with some heavy reading involved. The questions too were not as simple as those seen in the previous years. Unlike in the forenoon session, there was no respite for test-takers even in the VA part. This was because there were absolutely no sitters (something that was seen in the forenoon session and in CAT 2018).

Test-takers would have found the DI & LR section relatively easy compared to those from the last couple of years. This may slightly balance a difficult VARC section, in the overall tally. Of the eight sets, there were four which could be attempted by students with a reasonable degree of comfort, something that students are not used to expecting with the DI & LR section in general. Test-takers with conceptual clarity and speed would have greatly benefited from this not-so-difficult section.

The QA section, as with the forenoon session, had questions from expected topics like Arithmetic (Time, Work and Distance, P&L, Ratios, Equations, AMA and SI-CI), Geometry and Mensuration, Numbers, Algebra, etc. The section was significantly easier compared to that of CAT 2018, thanks to less wordy questions. There were some formula-based questions that could have been solved in quick time.

Overall, the afternoon session of CAT 2019, like the forenoon session, appears to be of similar difficulty level as that of CAT 2018, with two sections (DILR and QA) being slightly on the easier side than those of CAT 2018, and one section (VARC) being tougher.

T.I.M.E. students would have been familiar with what they encountered in the afternoon session, given that quite a few AIMCATs had similar difficulty levels. Students who had invested time in the AIMCAT analysis and CATStrat would have known exactly how to go about cracking the exam.

Keep watching this space for more detailed analysis...

The afternoon session of CAT 2019 didn't throw any googlies just like the forenoon session as far as the pattern is concerned. However, on the difficulty level front, there were some variations. The VARC section was a notch easier compared to that of the forenoon session. The DI & LR section was also a few notches tougher compared to that of the forenoon session. The QA section, however, would have come as a relief to test-takers flustered by the first two sections. It was noticeably easier compared to that of the forenoon session.

VARC

The RC passages in the afternoon session proved to be difficult to handle. Neither the subject of the content, nor the questions gave students any easy opportunities to score.

The five RC passages were of moderate length and included the following subjects: Literature (Language and cultural barriers), History (British Colonial Policy), Science &Technology (Google and archaeology), Sociology (Dense cities and efficiency & Distributing bureaucracy). At least, one passage was very difficult to read and navigate, while a couple of them were rather dense and difficult to deal with.

The questions were critical reasoning-heavy and at times, rather convoluted. Many of the questions were of the ‘EXCEPT’ type, and the options for quite a few increased the amount of reading a test-taker had to do before arriving at the answer.

Unlike in the forenoon session, the Verbal Ability Questions didn’t provide any significant relief either. The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-One-out, were tricky, and lengthy. The Para Summaries, too, were not simple enough to identify the right option, as far as the essence of the para was concerned and needed significant back and forth to identify the key idea/s in the para.

A net score of 37 – 39 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

DI & LR

The DI & LR section of the afternoon session brought no cheer to those looking for some respite after a tough VARC section.

There were three to four moderate sets, two to three moderate-difficult sets, and two very difficult sets. However, the moderate ones could only be cracked by those who were alert enough to spot them and persist with them. The sets on the shooting tournament and mid-term and end-term exams were particularly difficult and should have been avoided, while the sets on coins and rainfall were easy to score off. Unlike in the forenoon session, there was a set on Venn Diagrams, and it was not so difficult to attempt. Most of the sets would have appeared familiar to T.I.M.E. students, especially those who put in serious preparation and have taken their AIMCATs regularly.

A net score of 26-28 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

QA

The QA section in the afternoon section was significantly easier compared to that in the forenoon session and also that of CAT 2018.

Arithmetic, as was the case with the forenoon session, took the lion’s share with 14 questions, most of which ranged from easy to moderate and, hence, would have been to the students’ liking. Algebra had 11 questions, ranging from moderate to difficult, while Geometry and Mensuration had 6 questions most of which were of moderate difficulty. Topics like P&C, trigonometry and coordinate geometry, present in the forenoon session, were conspicuous by their absence.

A net score of 33-35 would be a decent score for a test-taker to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off).

Note: The sectional cut-offs have been revised post the release of the CAT Question Paper by the IIMs.

This year CAT is expected to release the question paper within a few days of the CAT. The paper will be made available to each student in his/her IIMCAT website login. Similar to what was done last year, this information is expected to also include the responses marked by the student and will be provided in a downloadable html file.

The Score Calculator feature that will be available on the T.I.M.E. website will evaluate the student responses in the html file against the key that T.I.M.E. will come up with. To use this feature, the students will need to upload their respective files and they will receive their expected scores in each section. Further, the CAT is expected to provide the official key a few days after the student responses are made available. As soon as the official CAT key is made available, the Score Calculator will automatically generate the students’ actual CAT 2019 scores based on the official key.

The score calculator feature will be made active once the CAT authorities release the student's responses.

All the best!