FMS exam though has been more predictable than other top exams of its league in terms of the total number of questions, pattern etc., this year paper did spring a difficult exam than last year. On the other hand, with the increased seats and difficult paper, the cut-off for this year is likely to be slightly lesser than that of last year.
The paper consisted of 4 sections
|
Section |
No. of Questions |
Level of Difficulty |
Possible attempts |
|
Verbal Ability |
42 |
Moderate to Difficult |
20+ with a lower attempts of 18 |
|
Reading Comprehension |
35 |
Moderate and Lengthy |
16 – 20 with a lower attempt of 14 |
|
Reasoning |
49 |
Moderate |
25+ with a lower attempt of 18 |
|
Quantitative Ability |
49 |
Moderate to Difficult and Lengthy |
20+ with a lower attempt of 16 |
The likely cut off is expected to be on the higher 200s.
This section lived up to its regular standards and was on predictable pattern with the section filled with a lot of vocabulary questions. If one had gone through the comparative analysis posted on the website – this section should not have surprised the students.
While, the students should have definitely attempted the one word substitutions, idioms, some antonyms, analogies, contextual usage, and best avoided the syllogisms that had a higher difficulty. Considering the lower emphasis on vocabulary for CAT – students relying on their verbal reasoning must have found this section difficult.
Ideal time allotment – 25 minutes for the above mentioned return with 85% accuracy
This section was also on the predicted lines as given in the comparative analysis with a good mix of direct and inference questions. There were total 5 passages with 7 questions each.
But there was no respite as all the passages were lengthy with word range of 1000 – 1200. If the students had worked on their reading speed and aligned with the technique of looking at the questions and reading the passage – then students could have possibly attempted around 20Q otherwise a selection of 2 passages and attempting all the questions in a time span of 30 minutes was possible. Since, the level of questions were easy to moderate being more direct – the accuracy in this section should ideally be higher and will play the key role.
Mainly, the section was testing the students’ ability to speed read with a high comprehension, which is a departure from CAT that tests students’ ability to infer.
The section was the only relief with the level of difficulty being moderate. The top performers are likely to have higher scores here and hence the sectional cut-off is likely to move up.
The individual questions on crypto-arithmetic and series, majority of the data arrangements, input-output diagram, and family tree were po ssible attempts followed by others. The critical reasoning questions were comparatively more difficult than the Analytical reasoning; hence the right selection of questions will be key to maximising scores in this section.
It was a definite departure from the usual FMS paper of moderate Math section. As predicted in the comparative analysis – a good preparation would have helped students from being surprised.
Though the section offered a judicious mix of various sub-skill questions, it was time consuming and calculation intensive. With a already harried by the number of questions to attempt in 2 hrs from a total of 175 questions, this was no easy section this time.
Students should have ideally aimed for higher accuracy and limiting the number of attempts by curbing the urge to attempt more. For the arithmetic lovers – there were the regular percentages, profit and loss, interest, partnership, TSD, and ratio/proportion. In algebra – P&C, probability; geometry – trigonometry, conics; modern math, Physics and statistics – the skill set was diverse.
The Data Interpretation consisted of 2 sets – Bar graph and Table each consisting 4Q and both were time consuming.
An allotment of 40 minutes for a return of 16+ questions would have been a good attempt. With the new sectional percentile in place – students should have ideally attempted not less than 14 – 18 questions in each of the section to ensure clearing the sectional cut-off and making it to the final list.
With the new sectional percentile in place – students should have ideally attempted not less than 14 – 18 questions in each of the section to ensure clearing the sectional cut-off and making it to the final list.
My expectations from MBAGuru were completely fulfilled and exceeded, both in terms of attention and enthusiasm. The classes are intensive and rigorous, along with a very relevant series of tests.
