The first slot of CAT 2018 was a mixed bag. While it didn't throw astronomical surprises, there were some changes, across sections, which in itself was not entirely unexpected. Students who have taken all the AIMCATs would have definitely been well-prepared to handle the few surprises (in terms of questions/difficulty) which were thrown at them.

As has generally been the case and reinforced by the feedback that we received from the students, there were quite a few doable questions across sections this year, as there were last year.

Although the number of lengthy questions in QA seems to have gone up, the presence of easy questions coupled with the art of filtering the difficult questions out would make students feel somewhat at ease. Nonetheless, most of the test-takers would have felt it to be an arduous task to push their overall attempts beyond a certain number. This is because any further move beyond it was being blocked by the difficult questions that were present aplenty across the sections, and which would have tested the core fundamentals of the students.

As usual, the order of the questions and the order of the options for various questions were different for different students.

In short, QA proved to be much tougher compared to CAT 2017, due to the lengthy and involved nature of the questions. VARC remained more or less at the same level and DILR was a tad easier compared to CAT 2017. As a result of this, the overall cutoff this year is expected to hover around the same level as that of CAT 2017.

Before we dig deeper into the discussion, let's quickly look at the test pattern.

Section	No. of Questions	No. of Non MCQ Questions	Difficulty level
Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension	34	7	Moderate
Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning	32	8	Difficult
Quantitative Ability	34	12	Moderate
Total	100	27

Comprehensive analysis - Slot 1

Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension Analysis

The Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension section is a section that most aspirants fear on account of its unpredictable nature. In one year if the RCs were lengthy which made them time - consuming then there were other years in which the questions were mostly inferential in nature which made the test tough. However, in CAT 2018 the passages were of moderate length and were from topics which are considered to be interesting reads – Biology, Environment, History, and Sociology.

Known to be a silent killer, the VARC section of CAT 2018 may live up to its name once again was deceptive, simple but could be hazardous if one were not careful enough. This is largely because of a pattern-change in the RC section. However, the slight increase in difficulty level of RC (compared to CAT 2017) might have been offset to a large extent by the Para Formation Questions, which were relatively simpler compared to CAT 2017. So, test-takers who have managed to ride the initial surprise and gather themselves would have done well.

With many readable and not-so-tough RC passages, the VARC section may have appeared very crackable. The surprise was the number of questions in the passages. Instead of the expected 6-Q and 3-Q passages, the test had four 5-Q passages and one 4-Q passage, which may have upset the strategy of students a little bit. The passages were mostly readable (except for one), and in almost 80% of the questions, it was, as expected, quite easy to eliminate two options. The question types were also quite similar to the previous year's CAT.

The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-One-out were quite simple to crack especially given that the PFQs only had four sentences instead of the expected number of five. This made the four PFQ questions must-attempts. The sentences in these questions were not very long reducing the difficulty level and making the questions appealing. The Odd-One-Out questions were relatively easy to crack as well. LackThe absence of negative marking for these questions was definitely a plus for the students. The Para summary questions might have posed a challenge for some students. While one of them was simple, the other two were reasonably time-consuming.

Area	Topic	No. of Qs	Difficulty Level
Reading Comprehension	5 passages	24	Moderate
Verbal Ability	Para-Formation	4	Easy-Moderate
	Para Odd Man Out	3	Moderate
	Summary	3	Moderate-Difficult

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 24 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to score 85 percentile (sectional cut-off)

Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning Analysis

CAT 2016 and CAT 2017 had a ferocious bout between them in terms of setting a new benchmark in difficulty level for the LRDI section. And then CAT 2018 took place. The test takers would have been pleasantly surprised to find the difficulty level going down slightly. Students who could remain calm and composed would have been able to score well. The difficulty level of the Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning section certainly went down a notch in CAT2018 to the relief of the students. Some of the DI sets were not difficult in terms of interpretation and the questions too in these sets were not tricky in nature. Students who had persisted throughout the AIMCATs would have kept their balance and found this section very manageable.

Area	Topic	No. of Qs	Difficulty Level
Data Interpretation	N*N Matrix	4	Moderate
	ATM Machine	4	Moderate+
	Pie-Chart	4	Easy
	Satellites	4	Difficult
Logical Reasoning	Committee	4	Moderate+
	Pipes	4	Moderate
	Institutes	4	Difficult
	Exam ( diff sections )	4	Difficult

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 15 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to get 85 percentile (sectional cut-off)

Quantitative Ability Analysis

The Quant section had 34 Questions with around 8 Questions of non-MCQ type. The number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered to be moderately difficult. This was offset by the large number of doable arithmetic questions which would have helped aspirants increase their attempts.

The low weightage trend for numbers continued this year in the morning slot. All in all, the difficulty level of this section can be classified as being slightly higher than moderate level (maybe a moderate plus).

Area	Topic	Description	No. of Qs	Difficulty Level
Quantitative Ability	Geometry & Mensuration		7	Moderate
	Numbers		2	Moderate+
	Arithmetic	AMA, TW, CI, TD, P&L, Ratio, Equations	15	Moderate
	Algebra	QE, Logs, Inequalities, Progressions, Coord. Geometry, Surds	7	Moderate+
	P&C/venn diagrams		3	Moderate

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 15 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to score 85 percentile (sectional cut-off)

The second slot of CAT 2018 also did not have many major surprises in store compared to CAT 2017. However, overall, it turned out to be slightly tougher than the morning slot. While the VARC section was more or less at the same difficulty level as that of the morning slot, the bump up in the difficulty level is largely on the back of relatively tougher DILR and Quant sections.

Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension Analysis

The VARC section, was of moderate level - nothing too intimidating, but at the same time, not too simple. There was a marginal increase in the difficulty level of the RC section (compared to CAT 2017). The RC passages weren’t very lengthy. They were from topics which were engaging – Biology, Environment, Sociology, Science. In VA, the Para Formation Questions were simpler compared to those of CAT 2017. So, test-takers who could keep their wits upon them, would have done reasonably well.

As was the case with the morning slot, the surprise was the number of questions in the passages. 6-Q and 3-Q passages were replaced by four 5-Q passages and one 4-Q passage, which may have given a few students an initial jolt. The passages were not too straight forward to read, but at the same time wouldn’t pose too many challenges to the seasoned reader. The question types were also quite similar to those of CAT 2017. There were 27 MCQs and 7 non-MCQs. The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-One-out were quite simple to crack especially given that the PFQs only had four sentences instead of the expected number of five. The Odd-One-Out questions were relatively easy to crack as well, and so were the Para Summary Questions.

Area	Topic	No. of Qs	Difficulty level
Reading Comprehension	5 passages	24	Moderate
Verbal Ability	Para-Formation Questions	4	Moderate
	Para-Formation Odd Man Out	3	Moderate
	Para Summary	3	Moderate

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 23 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to 85 percentile.

Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning Analysis

Test takers from the second slot would have found the difficulty level of this section slightly more doable compared to that of CAT 2017. It was also a tad tougher than the difficulty level in the morning slot. There were 24 MCQs and 8 non-MCQs. Nevertheless, there were relatively easier sets such as the one with ‘room numbers’ and the one with ‘profitability and market share’ which should have been solved comfortably. Most of the sets were found to be lengthy and time-consuming. Some of them were quite difficult to comprehend, owing to the depth of reasoning involved. Students who had persisted throughout the AIMCATs would have kept their balance and found this section manageable.

Area	Topic	No. of Qs	Difficulty level
Data Interpretation	Square chart	4	Difficult
	Profitability and Market share	4	Moderate
	Currency conversion	4	Difficult
	B-School grading	4	Difficult
Logical Reasoning	Coding - Decoding	4	Difficult
	Platinum – gold tickets	4	Difficult
	Room Numbers and timings	4	Easy
	Venn Diagrams	4	Moderate-Difficult

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 12 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to get 85 percentile.

Quantitative Ability Analysis

The Quant section had 22 MCQs with 12 questions of non-MCQ type. The low weightage trend for Numbers continued this year in the afternoon slot as well. At the same time, Arithmetic was heavily favoured. There were a good number of questions from Geometry and Mensuration. All in all, the difficulty level of this section can be classified as being moderate to difficult level.

Area	Topic	Description	No. of Qs	Difficulty level
Quantitative Ability	Geometry& Mensuration		6	Moderate+
	Numbers		4	Moderate
	Arithmetic	AMA, TW, CI, TD,P&L, RPV, Equations	14	Moderate+
	Algebra	QE, Logs, Inequalities,Functions	8	Difficult
	Miscellaneous		2	Difficult

A good number of attempts for this section would be around 12 (getting at most 1/3rd of the questions wrong) to be able to get 85 percentile.

Abraham Lincoln famously said, ‘Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.’ If there is something that has vindicated the sense of importance good preparation deserves, it is CAT 2018.

The big day arrived with plenty of anticipation about pattern changes and difficulty levels. Long into the night, discussions will be raging for sure, across student communities. Did CAT spring a major surprise this year? Well, no! Was CAT 2018 more difficult than CAT 2017? Well, maybe not!

The VARC section gave a mild surprise to students across both slots. Out went the taken-for-granted 6-Q and 3-Q passages. Making a surprise entry were five-question and four-question passages. That would have straightaway increased the overall length of the content that needed to be read by test-takers to attempt the 24 RC questions. Decision-making for those who weren’t looking to solve all the RCs would have been trickier, what with all the RCs seemingly of similar difficulty level. The subjects covered were also more exotic than usual – environment, biology, sociology, and history were the flavours of the day.

The slight upsurge in difficulty in RC was largely compensated for by easier VA sections in both slots, the big relief for students being four-sentence Para Formation Questions. Odd-Man-Out questions were also low-hanging fruits, with Summary questions proving to be slightly trickier. All in all, the VARC section hovered around the same difficulty level as last year; those who haven’t practised a lot might have found it a little tougher, given the nature of options in some questions and the intensity of the subjects.

The DILR Section was relatively easier compared to CAT 2017, but make no mistake, it was still challenging in both slots. However, unlike last year, there was at least one doable set in both the slots along with some manageable/fight-worthy sets.

Both the slots saw some straightforward set-types – Distributions/Venn-Diagrams/Calculation based sets. Nevertheless, the time that these sets demanded was a dampener which would contribute to lowering the cut-offs.

T.I.M.E. students reported that the LRDI in AIMCATs and the inputs they received from faculty in classes along with the study material helped them navigate this section with a lot of confidence.

The Quant Section proved to be the high tide in both slots. It was easily a few notches higher in difficulty level compared to CAT 2017. This difficulty was induced largely by the need to work around fixed methods. There were no low-hanging fruits and very few questions could be solved without breaking a sweat. Questions were lengthy, and some also had additional conditions (read twists) that the students needed to watch out for. The number of Easy questions saw a conspicuously drastic fall compared to last year which will contribute to a steep fall in the cut-offs this year.

The other apparent feature of the QA section this year is the continued focus on Arithmetic. Pure-maths questions (on Functions, P&C, CG, etc.) were present, albeit lower in number. Within Arithmetic, the focus on usual suspects like Numbers was very low in both the slots, while Geometry, TW and TD had very good representation.

While a very well-prepared student would not have broken much sweat, those who were tentative on their preparation would have found out that the going was not as smooth as they would have liked it to be.

Overall

CAT 2018 was a smooth experience for students across the country (as per the reports received till now). We congratulate the IIMs for yet another seamless CAT.

From the students’ perspective, it turned out to be more or less on the expected lines with a bit of fluctuation in the difficulty of sections here and there. The cut-offs are expected to be a tad lower than those of last year, overall, QA being the spoilsport this time around.