Experts from Career Launcher give a paper-wise evaluation of the exam
Paper: Slot 1 breakdown
The CAT 2018 came out of the bag with two thuds and one loud bang. The paper started with an even easier than 2017 Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC) section. Then the level of difficulty of the Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DILR) section provided a major reprieve to the nervous aspirants as it broke with the trend of the last three years. It was a moderately difficult as compared to an out and out difficult section that has been observed over the last two-three years. However, this relief was short-lived as Quantitative Aptitude (QA) came out all guns blazing. IIM-C kept its reputation intact, with its emphasis on the QA section.
The break-up of the paper (Slot 1): The VARC greeted students with an easier than expected paper. However, the pattern of the paper didn't strictly match that of the sample paper provided by the CAT team. The topics of the remaining RC passages were also from familiar areas. They were easy to read. There were quite a few inference-based questions, but these were easy to attempt.
The options were not really very close. Only four-five questions from RC were tricky. However, a student should have followed the process of elimination to be able to achieve a decent accuracy rate as the options were not straight-forward. The VA section had one major change. There were four Subjective Para Jumble (PJ) questions, and all of these had four sentences each. There were three odd sentence para-jumble questions. These questions were easier than expected. A student could have easily managed to get 4 questions correct out of the seven PJs. These were Type In The Answer (TITA) questions. The three summary questions were difficult. The paragraphs focused entirely on research methodology and academic concepts. So, they were difficult to read and comprehend. However, the options were not really difficult. For many CAT aspirants this year (especially those who relied heavily on QA), VA may just turn out to be the saviour.
Major surprise: The PJs were easy and the sentences were short.
The next section was Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DILR). After three consecutive tragedies, DILR-2018 must have been a pleasant surprise. There were 32 questions in all with eight non-MCQs. Unlike last year’s paper, the theme of the sets was more conventional. With the smart selection, around four sets in the section could have been attempted easily with accuracy. A couple of sets had one difficult to crack question each. A student should have been wise enough to leave these aside. Calculation wasn’t required at all in the DI sets. On the other hand, the LR sets were easy-moderate in terms of level of difficulty.
For students who were already scared of QA section, it could have felt like a nuclear disaster. But for the engineering group, this was not impossible to attempt. The questions were calculation and logic intensive, not theory intensive.
The writer is Gautam Bawa ,Group Product Head
Paper: Slot 2 breakdown
Students who went into the second slot expecting a similar paper as that of the first slot (or for that matter the CAT 2017 paper) were on the right track. It too started with an ‘easy’ VARC section. The passages were on similar lines as those of the first slot. The DILR section continued to give a sigh of relief to the students. However, some are of the opinion that it was slightly tougher than the first slot’s DILR section. Overall, it was of a moderate level of difficulty. And the reign of QA continued. It remained the toughest section in the second slot too.
The break-up of the paper (Slot 2):
The VARC section continued to be the feel good section. The pattern remained the same as that of the first slot. There were no instructions provided for the number of questions in each passage. However, there remained five passages. One passage had four questions while the rest had five questions each. The topics of the remaining Reading Comprehension (RC) passages were also from familiar areas. They were easy to read. There were quite a few inference-based questions, but these were easy to attempt, thanks to the option choices. The options were not really very close. Only four-five questions from RC were tricky. However, a student should have followed the process of elimination to be able to achieve a decent accuracy rate as the options were not straight forward. The Verbal Ability (VA) section had one major change. There were four subjective para-jumble questions, and all of these had four sentences each. There were three odd sentence para-jumble (OSPJ) questions. These questions were easier than expected. A student could have easily managed to get four questions correct out of the seven PJs. These were TITA questions.
The three para-summary questions were of moderate level of difficulty. The paragraphs continued to be short in the range of 450 to 500 words each. However, as compared to the first slot, the summary questions were slightly easier. Only one summary question appeared to be tough. So, VARC continued to be the easiest of the lot.
The second section of the paper — DILR — continued to be a pleasant surprise. There were 32 questions in total with eight non-MCQs. Unlike last year’s paper, the theme of the sets was more conventional. There was one very direct DI set with basic calculations. The focus and strategy should have been the quality of the selected sets rather the quantity of the numbers of questions attempted. A couple of sets did have a question each which should have been ‘left alone’. Two sets included calculation but none was on the tougher side. On the other hand, the LR sets were easy-moderate in terms of level of difficulty.
Overall, 15-17 attempts, with an accuracy of 90 per cent would be considered good.
Once the QA section was over, students would have come out with much less satisfaction as they would have had they come out at the end of DILR. If you expected a happy ending in QA, you were definitely not paying attention to all the discussions following the first slot. An overall attempt of 18-20 with 85 per cent accuracy will be good.
Overall, a 99 percentile score could reduce by about 15-18 marks as compared to last year. Thus, a score of 150-155 should fetch a 99 percentile.
The writer is Arks Srinivas, National Head, MBA Prepagen