Pattern of CAT2001 Paper

No time limit was given for each section separately.

There was negative marking but the level of negative marking was not specified.

The candidate was expected to show competence in all the sections.

Analysis of CAT2001 Paper

Students who wrote CAT2001 on the 9^th of December would undoubtedly have felt like the girl in one of Aesop’s Fables – a little glad and a little sad. A little glad because after CAT2000 (last year), this year the questions did not appear quite so difficult. A little sad because after thorough analysis, the questions were quite a bit more difficult than they appeared to be! This then is the story of CAT2001- the paper was just a wee bit easier than last year’s. Certainly the cut-off scores and the marks levels expected for the much sought after IIM calls will be a little more than last year.

A High Power team of T.I.M.E.’s best brains have carefully analysed the CAT2001 paper and the consensus is that a net score of around 65 (may be even a jot less) should get students at least one IIM call. The best brains in the country who gun for all the six IIM calls should need to get a score of 75-80. All this, provided, of course, you clear the sectional cut-offs.

The calls for the next level of institutes – the MDIs, the S.P.Jains and the TAPMIs – should come to students who get a net score of anywhere between 58 and 65.

The paper had a small surprise right at the beginning – the number of questions were down to 150 (from 165 in each of the last two years). T.I.M.E. students, who discussed Test Taking Strategies in detail, would not have let this bother them at all. What difference does the number of questions make? No serious candidate would ever be planning to attempt all the questions!

As usual, the instructions clearly specified that while dividing the total time of two hours, candidates had to ensure that they displayed their competence in all three sections of the paper. The best strategy for the paper would have been to spend an equal amount of time – 40 minutes – for each of the three sections.

For a change, the paper setters made Quantitative Ability the first section in the CAT paper. The section was a total turnaround from CAT2000 where Coordinate Geometry, Functions, Graphs had thrown students off-guard. This year the old favourites were back - Averages, Time & Work, Time & Distance, Progressions and Percentages were back in style. The all-important chapters of Numbers and Geometry/Mensuration continued to play a dominant role in CAT. All this went a long way in vindicating our stand that while preparing for an exam like CAT, students need to understand carefully the long term trends of the paper and not go by just the most recent papers.

Although the questions in this section appeared simple, many of them were wolves in sheep’s clothing --confusing and time-consuming. A number of the very best students would have attempted only about 25 questions in 40 minutes. This means that 18-20 in this section would be a very good score and the cut off would be a very good score and the cut off would probably be in the 13 to 15 range.

This was the Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension section of the paper. As was the case in the last two years, this year also there was a single section covering these two areas.

The RC part of the section had six passages with about a total of about 4500 words and 30 questions. While many of the passages required a good grasp of the English language, the questions however were quite straight-forward and unambiguous. It was RC in the true CAT tradition - passages that appeared long and difficult to understand, but questions that were direct and options that did not have ambiguity. Overall, the good students would have been able to attempt a total of 17 to 19 questions from four passages in about 25 to 28 minutes. All said and done, it was an RC of medium difficulty.

This section also had 20 questions on Verbal Ability. There were five questions on Paragraph Forming, five on Fill-in-the-Blanks (two blanks) and ten questions based on Vocabulary/Usage of words. The level of vocab required was certainly not very simple, and this paper busts the myth that CAT papers do not require any significant knowledge of English vocabulary. A good performer would have attempted around 15-17 questions, in about 12-15 minutes.

Overall, about 33-35 attempts in this section can be considered to be very good. This means that a score of around 24 or 25 would be a good score. The cut-off for this section would be in the 18-19 range.

This section consisted of 23 questions on Data Interpretation (across six sets), 7 questions on Data Sufficiency and 20 questions on Analytical Reasoning. This year, Critical Reasoning was conspicuous by its absence.

The DI was widely perceived to be very easy. However, careful study showed that one or two of the sets were slightly ambiguously worded and would have troubled even the best of students – especially under the pressure cooker conditions that CAT creates. It would have been a good job done to have attempted about 17-18 of the 23 questions.

The 7 DS questions were probably the easiest in the recent history. There were, of course, a couple of tricky questions – but overall an easy area. Many students would have attempted most of these questions.

The Analytical Reasoning area had 11 single questions, one set of 3 questions (Selection), one set of 2 questions (Greater than/Less than variety) and one set of 4 questions (based on Logical Connectives & Set Theory). All the 11 “singles” questions were pretty lengthy and a student would have been better off by leaving out these questions but attempting the questions that were given in the other three sets.

The best of students would have been able to attempt 28-30 questions. With some mistakes being inevitable, 20-22 would be a pretty good net score in this section. The cut-off would probably be 15-16.

Overall, this paper was certainly easier than CAT2000 paper. If a student managed to keep his cool and consciously looked out for easy questions, he or she would have been able to do fairly well. It was a paper that was fairly reminiscent of older CAT papers and went a long way to prove that carefully planned preparation and cool head under pressure is the recipe for success.