Students reported that amongst all the sections, this was most time consuming. Based on the student feedback the overall difficulty level of this section could be described as moderate to slightly difficult. However, they felt that one could have skipped a few difficult questions, and thereby utilized that time in attempting the other sections. According to them an attempt of 42-45 questions in 70 mins would have been a good strategy. One could have decided to spend even less time in this section and utilize it in the other sections.
Most of the set were from Data Arrangements. There were 47 questions on Arrangement in 8 different sets. The sets were time consuming. Apart from data arrangement, there was one set on Blood relation and one set on coding and decoding. There was no set on Selection criteria.This is an all-time high in the past 15 years.A good strategy would have been to use the pre-decidedtime for this section but one should have attempted questions in the following order: Analytical Reasoning, Critical/Verbal Reasoning and then the Analytical puzzles. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.
This area had the maximum number of questions. There were many regular type questions like Linear Arrangement, Circular Arrangement, Distribution, Matrix arrangement and Vertical Arrangement. The silver lining was that there were no stand-alone questions. The two sets on linear arrangement and blood relation were comparatively easier and should have been attempted. Along with them, the two sets on vertical arrangement and one set on distribution should also have been attempted. The Other 3 sets should have been left alone. Thus, 25 out of the 47 questions were doable. However, attempting all 47 questions could have consumed a lot of time. Instead of that, one could have attempted analytical reasoning first and then utilized the remaining time for tackling analytical puzzles. Certain types of sets were predicted by T.I.M.E. & were included in our end course workshops and AMMCETs. This would have made life easier for our students.
Deductions: Various questions types were covered such as two statements and 2 conclusions, 3 statements and 2 conclusions. There were also conclusions involving possibility. Any student who was well-versed with the basic concepts would have been able to answer all the questions accurately.
Symbols and Notations: There were 5 questions. In each question, the data was given in inequality format. There were two or three statements followed by two conclusions. These were must-attempt questions.
Coding – Decoding: In CET 2018, there was a new question type but this year they asked the usual type where four statements were given with their codes and by checking common word and common code, one could have answered them. These were the easiest questions in this section and one couldn't have afforded to not attempted these questions.
Miscellaneous: There were three individual questions. Very Easy!
These were on the easier side and didn't involve lot of effort.
There was a common paragraph from which an inference and a reason had to be found. While the reason question was easy, the inference one was difficult. Then there was a question where a definition was given and we needed to identify which option would fit that definition, again an easy question. In CR, there was a question on Weakening of Arguments which was moderate. In totality, the questions from CR and VR were pretty much easy, with a couple of moderate questions and would be scoring areas for a well prepared student. He/she could have got around 7-8 correct out of 10 Q in around 10-15 minutes.
Students found this section moderate as compared to other sections. There were no Surprises in this section. The difficulty level of this section was slightly higher than CET 2018. One could have easily attempted around 17-19 questions in 20 minutes. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.
Students have reported that, in comparison to last year's Verbal section, this year the verbal section was easier in comparison. There were a few new question types, but the areas tested were not new. Just the way of presenting the questions was new. In addition, it was observed that as there were 3 Reading Comprehension passages, the section became lengthier than usual. A well-prepared student should have attempted 30-35 questions in 35 minutes and answered 25-30 questions correctly.The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.
Some students recollected that there were 3 passages this time.
There was a passage with 4 Q, 1 passage with 5 Q and 1 passage with 6 Q.
The passage with 4 Q was a bit tricky to read, but questions were easier, with mostly direct questions.
The other 2 passages were trickier and had a combination of direct and indirect questions. The 2nd passage had a vocabulary question and one on identifying the meaning of a highlighted idiom.
The Fill in the Blanks questions were in a new format. In each question, there was a sentence with 3 blanks and 5 word options. We had to choose the option that would fit in all blanks. This could be seen as a test of homonyms, and were very easy.
There were 6 questions of Error spotting, which were again in a new format. There was a common set of 6 sentences. Each sentence had 4 words in bold, numbered A, B, C and D. We had to choose the word that was either misspelt or used in a wrong context in that sentence. These questions were very easy.
Phrase Replacement Questions, possible sentence starters and identify the correct sentence were on the conventional side. Possible sentence starters were of a moderate difficulty level, the others were easier.
The questions on idiom/phrase usage were of a new format. This needed a good knowledge of idioms and phrases and would accordingly be easy or moderate.
There was a set of Para Jumbles with 5 questions. While 3 were traditional, 2 were new.
There was a set of Para based questions which had 6 lines in order. The 1st question needed the student to identify the option that could come at the start of the para. The 2nd one asked them to choose an option that would summarize the paragraph.
These were of a moderate difficulty level.
Students felt that the difficulty level of this section ranged from easy to moderate. They said that the DI sets were of mixed difficulty level. More than a few quant questions were moderately lengthy and should have been skipped. A good student would be able to solve around 32-35 questions in 45 mins. The students have recollected that the combination of questions in this section was as follows.
Students reported that most of the questions in Quantitative Ability were from the Arithmetic section. However, the data was not straightforward. The better the clarity of concepts, the easier a student would have found it to answer! Also, enough practice would have enabled a student answer the questions faster & with a high accuracy. Students who didn't bother much with practicing would have found this section difficult. Also, the overall time taken per question in this section would have been slightly more. One should have attempted the DI and Quantitative comparison questions before attempting the Quantitative Ability questions.
There were 10 questions on Quantitative comparison (Arithmetic - 4 questions, Quadratic equations - 6 questions).According to the students Data Comparison questions were based on only Quadratic Equations. These Quadratic Equations could have been factorized easily.
There were 6 questions, out of which 5 questions were doable. In each question a series was given with one wrong number which had to be identified.
There were 4 sets covering all varieties like Table, Pie Chart, Line Graph and Case lets. All the sets were different in nature with two sets being very thoughtfully designed & the other two sets being regular sets where an understanding of data and calculations was required. Knowing the basic concepts of Percentage, profit and loss would have been helpful in solving all four sets. Considering the difficulty level and amount of time required, one should have attempted DI questions before Quantitative Ability questions.
Based on the student feedback on the overall, the paper can be classified as moderately difficult. From what the students have reported, the correct selection of questions is the key to a good score. Since there wasn't any element of surprise in the type of questions, a judicious distribution of time and choice would have ensured a comfortable number of attempts with a good accuracy. A good student should have attempted around 118-123 questions. However, students aiming for the top colleges should have attempted around 125-130 questions.
NOTE- The difficulty level for slot 1 and slot 2 seemed to be different. So, we are expecting that there might be normalisation of scores in CET this year. It has been mentioned in the hall ticket as well that the scores will be adjusted to get a normalised score.