About Us
Our Results
Our Offices
Enquire Here
Login
Dear Student,
With the CAT exam coming to an end, we bring to you the best and the most comprehensive analysis of the paper.
We will also help you with expert estimates of your possible scores and percentiles given your performance in the exam. In addition to this, we will also give you the likelihood of your receiving calls from individual IIMs. To ensure that you get predictions that are as accurate as possible, please input the number of questions attempted across sections along with a realistic estimate of the number of questions you expect to be correct.
Also input your profile data - Academic percentages, work experience and reservation category.
All the best!!
In line with the expectations that students have about the CAT exam throwing surprises at them, the CAT 2016 did surprise them. However, the surprise factor may hit the students a little late. As per the feedback that we received from the students, there were quite a few doable questions across sections this year, as there were last year. However, the number of tough questions seems to have gone up significantly. The presence of easy questions would make the students feel that the section is not very tough. However, many would have felt it to be an arduous task to push their overall attempts beyond a certain level. This is because any further move beyond this was being blocked by the difficult questions that were present aplenty across the sections.
The order of questions and options for the questions was different for different students.
With many tricky questions and the added possibility of silly mistakes, the cutoffs this year could move south, compared to CAT 2015.
One significant observation that could be gathered from our expert analysis this year is that the level of difficulty of each of the three sections was very close across the two slots. This was unlike CAT 2015, where there was observable difference in difficulty level in two of the sections (LRDI & VARC).
Before we dig deeper into the discussion, let's quickly look at the test pattern.
Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension Analysis
The Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension section is one section that most aspirants dread on account of its fickle ways. If in one year the RCs were lengthy which made them time consuming there were other years in which the questions were mostly inferential in nature which made the paper tough. However, in CAT2016 the passages were of moderate length and were from topics which are considered to be interesting reads – Economics, Environment, Linguistic Studies etc. However, the joy was short lived as the answer options were extremely close and aspirants had to read the relevant paragraphs multiple times to get to the correct option. Not only did this increase the stress levels but also took its toll on the countdown clock – aspirants ran out of time and this is one factor that would reduce the overall attempts in this section. The questions in Verbal ability area did not have any negative marking as they were of the non-MCQ type which could have motivated students to attempt them. The Para-formation questions turned out to be some of the toughest ones seen in recent years due to the absence of anwer choices. For most aspirants, it would have been a herculean task to identify the starter and find relevant connections. Aspirants who attempted these questions can expect to see low accuracy and low scores from these questions. The Para summary questions can be classified as moderate and should have been attempted to boost the score.
CAT 2015 had set a new benchmark in terms of difficulty level for the LRDI section. Aspirants who had worked furiously post this would have benefitted the most as CAT 2016 set a new benchmark. The difficulty level of the Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning section certainly went up one notch in CAT2016. The DI sets were not difficult in terms of interpretation but the Qs more than made up for this – the Qs were tricky and it wasn’t easy to solve more than 2-3 Qs in each set. Students who had persisted throught the AIMCATs would have kept their balance and found this section less intimidating.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability AnalysisThe Quant section had 34 Qs with around 8 Qs of non-MCQ type. The number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered to be moderate-difficult. This was offset by the large number of Arithmetic questions which would have helped aspirants increase their attempts.
The low weightage trend for numbers continued this yearin the morning slot. All in all, this section can be classified as being slightly higher than moderate level (maybe a moderate plus).
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 19-21.
Comprehensive analysis - Slot 2 Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension AnalysisKnown to be a silent killer, the VARC section of CAT 2016 may live up to its name once again. It is named so because unlike in QA or DILR students who expect very good scores may see their expectations ruined once the scores are revealed.
With many readable and not-so-tough RC passages, the VARC section may have appeared very crackable, despite the tough VA questions. However, the close choices in the RC questions and the completely new question types - like“Main purpose of the passage” - made this section tougher than what it seemed to be.
The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-man-out and Para summary were quite tough to crack especially given that there were no options to guide the students. Lack of negative marking for these questions was definitely a plus for the students.
The comeback of tough DILR sections seen in CAT2015 continued in CAT 2016 and the rampage caused by it would have left many IIM aspirants licking their wounds, unless they have prepared well expecting a tough DILR on the back of CAT 2015. This was even more important as the toughness of this section seems to have only increased further. One factor that the students could have taken solace from is that the difficult sets were clearly unsolvable right from the outset, helping them drop out of those fairly soon.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability AnalysisThe Quant section had 34 Qs with around 6 Qs of non-MCQ type. As was seen in the morning slot, the number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered to be moderate-difficult. P&C saw a very strong come back this year along with Numbers, which was unlike what was seen in the first slot. There were a very good number of questions from Arithmetic, most of which could have been quickly solved by a student with moderate - good level of preparation.
There were a few cases where the mathematical symbols could be interpreted incorrectly.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 18-20.
Cut offsWith the paper being difficult compared to the CAT 2015 across sections, the cutoffs are expected to drop. The drop is expected to be significant in case of the DILR section.
The cut-offs for the two slots are expected to be as below. As both the slots saw papers of similar difficulty level, the cutoffs are being put up in common.
Sectional Cutoff ScoreNote: While the CAT website and the test instructions page mentioned 3 marks for every correct answer and a negative mark for every wrong answer, within the test, the individual question and the “Question paper” view showed 1 mark for every correct answer and -0.33 for every wrong answer. The cutoffs predicted above are according to the scoring pattern mentioned in the website & the test instructions page (+3 and -1).
The Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension section is one section that most aspirants dread on account of its fickle ways. If in one year the RCs were lengthy which made them time consuming there were other years in which the questions were mostly inferential in nature which made the paper tough. However, in CAT2016 the passages were of moderate length and were from topics which are considered to be interesting reads – Economics, Environment, Linguistic Studies etc. However, the joy was short lived as the answer options were extremely close and aspirants had to read the relevant paragraphs multiple times to get to the correct option. Not only did this increase the stress levels but also took its toll on the countdown clock – aspirants ran out of time and this is one factor that would reduce the overall attempts in this section. The questions in Verbal ability area did not have any negative marking as they were of the non-MCQ type which could have motivated students to attempt them. The Para-formation questions turned out to be some of the toughest ones seen in recent years due to the absence of anwer choices. For most aspirants, it would have been a herculean task to identify the starter and find relevant connections. Aspirants who attempted these questions can expect to see low accuracy and low scores from these questions. The Para summary questions can be classified as moderate and should have been attempted to boost the score.
CAT 2015 had set a new benchmark in terms of difficulty level for the LRDI section. Aspirants who had worked furiously post this would have benefitted the most as CAT 2016 set a new benchmark. The difficulty level of the Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning section certainly went up one notch in CAT2016. The DI sets were not difficult in terms of interpretation but the Qs more than made up for this – the Qs were tricky and it wasn’t easy to solve more than 2-3 Qs in each set. Students who had persisted throught the AIMCATs would have kept their balance and found this section less intimidating.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability AnalysisThe Quant section had 34 Qs with around 8 Qs of non-MCQ type. The number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered to be moderate-difficult. This was offset by the large number of Arithmetic questions which would have helped aspirants increase their attempts.
The low weightage trend for numbers continued this yearin the morning slot. All in all, this section can be classified as being slightly higher than moderate level (maybe a moderate plus).
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 19-21.
Known to be a silent killer, the VARC section of CAT 2016 may live up to its name once again. It is named so because unlike in QA or DILR students who expect very good scores may see their expectations ruined once the scores are revealed.
With many readable and not-so-tough RC passages, the VARC section may have appeared very crackable, despite the tough VA questions. However, the close choices in the RC questions and the completely new question types - like“Main purpose of the passage” - made this section tougher than what it seemed to be.
The VA questions, on Para Formation/Para Odd-man-out and Para summary were quite tough to crack especially given that there were no options to guide the students. Lack of negative marking for these questions was definitely a plus for the students.
The comeback of tough DILR sections seen in CAT2015 continued in CAT 2016 and the rampage caused by it would have left many IIM aspirants licking their wounds, unless they have prepared well expecting a tough DILR on the back of CAT 2015. This was even more important as the toughness of this section seems to have only increased further. One factor that the students could have taken solace from is that the difficult sets were clearly unsolvable right from the outset, helping them drop out of those fairly soon.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 14-16.
Quantitative Ability AnalysisThe Quant section had 34 Qs with around 6 Qs of non-MCQ type. As was seen in the morning slot, the number of questions on Geometry was on the higher side and some of them can be considered to be moderate-difficult. P&C saw a very strong come back this year along with Numbers, which was unlike what was seen in the first slot. There were a very good number of questions from Arithmetic, most of which could have been quickly solved by a student with moderate - good level of preparation.
There were a few cases where the mathematical symbols could be interpreted incorrectly.
The number of good attempts for this section would be around 18-20.
With the paper being difficult compared to the CAT 2015 across sections, the cutoffs are expected to drop. The drop is expected to be significant in case of the DILR section.
The cut-offs for the two slots are expected to be as below. As both the slots saw papers of similar difficulty level, the cutoffs are being put up in common.
Sectional Cutoff Score :Note: While the CAT website and the test instructions page mentioned 3 marks for every correct answer and a negative mark for every wrong answer, within the test, the individual question and the “Question paper” view showed 1 mark for every correct answer and -0.33 for every wrong answer. The cutoffs predicted above are according to the scoring pattern mentioned in the website & the test instructions page (+3 and -1).
While the CAT exam has been going on for the last few years with very few and minor glitches, there seems to be a problem area this year, in CAT16 conducted today. It appears that someone managed to transmit at least some of the questions from a CAT centre in the afternoon slot, while the exam was still going on.
Screenshots of the exam screen from an alleged post on a social site/forum have been making rounds on Whatsapp/Facebook from around 3.00 pm. Test-takers who took the CAT in the afternoon slot confirmed that the questions appearing in the screenshots were indeed there in the test that they appeared for. For good measure, those questions were shown to students who took the test in the first slot and they confirmed that those questions were not a part of the paper in the first slot.
The only time the CAT paper leaked was during CAT-2003. After that instance of paper-leak in 2003, there has been no instance of a paper leak in the CAT conducted by the IIMs. In fact, after the CAT became an online/computer-based test, the IIMs have put in stringent conditions in place preventing students from disclosing the questions even after the completion of the test – and it has worked fairly well.
Now, this leak, if it were one, has two possibilities. The first is that a test-taker transmitted some of the questions outside the exam hall just to show his/her abilities to beat the system. The second is that a student sent these questions out to some contact of his/her with an objective of getting answers to the questions that he/she wanted to answer. Of course, the answers could come into the exam hall through the same route that the questions went out.
Students are obviously concerned about this leak and how it will affect their selection chances. The IIMs will need to investigate what exactly happened – they should do it on topmost priority. This is required for calming the students' anxiety and to assure them that the sanctity of the test has not been compromised or if it has been necessary action will be taken. Based on the findings, they should decide on the course of action.
If the IIMs find that the leak is a very localised one, they may not take a drastic action like cancellation of the entire exam. If they cancel the entire exam or the afternoon slot, it is likely to put thousands of students to major inconvenience. But, of course, the IIMs have the responsibility of upholding the sanctity of the test and ensuring that the students don’t lose out because of any malpractice indulged in by a few test-takers.
While we understand the frustration that test takers, especially those in the 2nd slot, may be feeling, we would like to highlight that the IIMs have been known to act very swiftly and responsibly in the past and there is every reason to believe that they would do so this time also.
So, keep calm and wait for the IIMs to announce their official stance on this.
Update on 5th Dec 2016
Important announcement by CAT 2016 Convener:
We wish to inform and assure everyone that the CAT Exam 2016 has concluded successfully. There was one incident of malpractice that was promptly detected and has been dealt with by initiating the due procedure of law. This incident has in no manner compromised the integrity of the Test and the CAT Administration requests you not to pay any heed to rumours or insinuations in this regard.