CMAT 2016 for the admission year 2016-17 was conducted by All India Council for Technical education (AICTE), on 17th January’16. Unlike all the previous editions which were conducted in a window of 4 or 5 days, this year’s CMAT was conducted in a single slot across the country. This was a positive factor as the entire country appeared for the same paper and hence the controversy regarding the variation in level of difficulty across different slots that occurred in all previous versions of CMAT has been put to rest.
Below is the section wise analysis of the test:
Quantitative Techniques & Data Interpretation:
Throughout all previous editions of CMAT it has been noticed that CMAT follows a pattern wherein it keeps one of the three major sections, viz. Quantitative Techniques & Data Interpretation, Logical Reasoning and Language Comprehension on a slightly tougher side. Like the last year, in this edition also it was the Quant Section which proved to be a little difficult for students. However, the surprising factor this year was complete absence of questions from topics like Time and Work, SICI, Permutation and Combinations, Ratio and Proportion, Heights and Distance, Co-ordinate Geometry and Trigonometry. There were no questions on Data Sufficiency either. This section had 3 questions of Number system, 2 questions each from Percentage, Profit and Loss, Time Speed and Distance, Quadratic Equations, Linear Equations and Progression, 1 question each from Probability, Averages, Quadrilaterals, Mensuration, Logarithm and Set Theory. There were 3 questions of Data Interpretation which were very easy. However 1 question of Conic Section (Ellipse) was a complete surprise. A well prepared and patient student would be able to attempt somewhere around 17 to 19 questions with 85% accuracy in 55 to 60 minutes.
By far, this was the easiest section of this year’s CMAT. Like all previous editions the Logical Reasoning section of this edition of CMAT had 13 questions that were based on Arrangement and Puzzles. Most of these questions were based on conditional reasoning. These questions could easily be answered by eliminating the options. Apart from questions based on Arrangements and Puzzles, there were 3 questions from Blood Relations, 1 question each from Direction Sense, Statement and Conclusion, Cause and Effect, Syllogisms, Visual Reasoning, Coding-Decoding, Clocks and Calendar, Data Sufficiency and Cubes. A well prepared student would have been able to attempt somewhere around 23 to 25 questions with 90% accuracy in 50 to 55 minutes.
Language Comprehension or Verbal Ability:
As always, this section had 15 questions spread across four Reading Comprehensions. One of the Reading Comprehension was slightly longer than the rest and it had six questions. The remaining three Reading Comprehensions had three questions each. The passages were not dense and quite easy to understand. However, there were some inference based questions which had tricky options. There was only one question of Critical Reasoning (Weaken the conclusion type). The surprising factor this year was complete absence of questions based on Para-jumbles and Fact, Inference and Judgment. Apart from these, there were 6 questions based on Vocabulary (Synonyms, Idioms, Fill in the blanks), 3 questions based on grammar. A well prepared student would have been able to attempt somewhere around 18 to 20 questions with 80% accuracy in 45 to 50 minutes.
CMAT has made it a habit to ask questions such as “Identify the person/logo in the given photograph” in this section. This time also there were 3 questions in which the students had to identify the person and 2 questions in which they had to identify the logo. Apart from these the section had a good mix of questions from history, geography, science, business and polity. There were absolutely no questions based on current affairs this year. A student who had prepared basic topics of History, Geography, Polity, Science and Awards would have been able to attempt 10 to 12 questions with 80% accuracy in 10 to 15 minutes.
The paper had a moderate to difficult Quant section, easy Logical Reasoning section and an easy to moderate Verbal Section and a slightly unpredictable GK section. As mentioned above CMAT has made it a habit to design a paper where in one of the three major sections i.e. Quant, Logical Reasoning or Verbal turns out to be a little difficult. A student who would have allotted time in a smart and efficient way to all the sections would be able to crack this CMAT. A score of 210 marks will fetch approximately 98 percentile or more and a score of 180 to 185 will fetch approximately 90 percentile.
Recommended for you
CLAT exam 2021 was conducted on July 23, 2021, via pen and paper method. In this CLAT 2021 analysis, our experts provide in-depth analysis and a breakdown of the test. A total of 70,277 students …
MAH Law CET (5-Year Law Program) – 2018: Exam Analysis Total Questions: 150 Total Marks: 150 Total Duration: 120 minutes (No sectional Time Limit) Marking System Marking: +1 for Correct, No Negative Marking Paper Pattern …
A genuine roller coaster ride: Three years, three papers. Cutoff for IIFT’13 was around 48.3 Cutoff for IIFT’14 was a little less than 38.5 Cutoff for IIFT’15 seems to be around 50 IIFT’15 was an …
Check out the SNAP 2020 Exam Analysis here: https://endeavorcareers.comsnap-2020-exam-analysis SNAP 2015 Exam Analysis Total Questions: 150 Total Marks: 180 Total time: 120 minutes Innovative…Fast Moving…Difficult are the words that can describe SNAP this year. Although …
Analysis of NMAT 2016-17 Other Examinations like to be Unpredictable. NMAT likes to be Standardized. NMAT has once again maintained its format and difficulty level (except for a couple of minor tweaks) same as the …
- IPMAT 2022 Exam Analysis – IIM Indore July 2, 2022
- GK Capsule May 2022 June 28, 2022
- Endeavor Careers Choicest Blogs: Weekly Current Affairs: June 2022, Week 04 June 27, 2022
- IPMAT 2022 Exam Analysis – IIM Rohtak June 25, 2022
- AILET 2022 Exam Analysis June 25, 2022