TISSNET 2017 Exam Analysis
IIFT 2016 Exam Analysis   IIFT 2016 Answer Key

IIFT 2016 Exam Analysis



So, the first major test of the season is over. The paper had some surprises for the students. DI has traditionally been a low-scoring section, at least in comparison with LR in IIFT, but this year it was the other way round. Similarly, RC was much more scoring than EU (again bucking the trend). EU was mostly vocab and many words there made one feel like a DOUGHBOY!

IIFT 2016 was not a surprise when it comes to the reputation of IIFT in coming with erroneous questions. There were questions in LR in which none of the options was correct. There were typographical errors in almost all the sections. Overall, we feel that the paper was a tad more difficult than IIFT 2015 paper.

Quantitative Aptitude had 2-3 questions which could have been done by just glancing through the options. General Knowledge (GK) section had preponderance of Current Affairs questions. One question was on the currency of Bulgaria (Shivay!), three questions were on cinema and one of these questions made Shraddha Kapoor younger by 2 years!

In Reading comprehension, all passages were of a moderate level of difficulty, and the incorrect answer choices were extremely easy to spot and eliminate.  A couple of passages did have numerous facts and figures, but not too many questions were based on these facts. In addition, the main ideas/focus of the passages, save one, were quite easy to spot. Overall verdict – easy to understand passages with easy questions. 

Verbal Ability section was dominated by vocabulary based questions, and it seems that students also needed to know some slang to answer some of the questions. Surprisingly, hardly any grammar was tested this year.  The difficulty level of this section is subjective as it would depend entirely on the vocabulary preparation of the students.

It is time you thought only about CAT and put your best foot forward, IIFT 2016 is dead (Postmortem would be out on December 15).

A detailed breakup of the section is given below:

Section Total no. of 
questions
Marks per
question
Total Marks Good Attempts Achievable Score Sectional 
Cutoff
Ideal Time 
(in minutes)
General Awareness 25 0.50 12.5 15 7-8 1.99 15
English Usage 20 0.75 15   23-24 14-15  9.67   30
Reading Comprehension 16 1.00 16
Quantitative Aptitude 20 1.00 20 15 12-14 4.01 35
Data Interpretation 20 1.00 20   18-20 15-16  8   40
Logical Reasoning 22 1.00 16.5
Overall 123   100   51-52   120
IIFT 2016 cutoff - General - 48.5, SC - 38.5, ST - 27.17, PH - 28.85, OBC (NCL) - 43.5

Sectional analysis:


General Awareness
Topic Number of Questions Level of Difficulty
Current Affairs 11 Difficult
Business and Economy 8 Moderate
Static GK 4 Moderate
Sports/Cinema 2 Easy

Reading Comprehension and English Usage
Part Topic Number of Questions Level of Difficulty
Part 1: Reading Comprehension Importance of the Manufacturing Sector 4 Easy
Reverse innovation –
PepsiCo success story
4 Easy
Participation of women in the workforce 4 Easy
Robotics- SLAM 4 Easy
Part 2: English Usage Vocabulary 10 Moderate
Spelling 2 1Easy
1Medium
Para Jumble 2 1Easy
1Medium
Idiom/Colloquial usage 3 Moderate
Etymology 3 Moderate
Logical Reasoning and Data Interpretation
Topic Number of Questions Level of Difficulty
Figure based analogy 4 Easy
Puzzles 3 Moderate-Tough
Arrangement 4+3+3 1 Easy                                       2 Moderate
Series 1 Easy
Venn diagram 1 Easy
Based on numbers 2 Moderate
Syllogism 1 Easy
Data Interpretation - Table 5 + 5 Moderate
Data Interpretation - Histogram 5 Tough
Data Interpretation–Multiple bar graph 5 Easy
Quantitative Ability
 
Part Topic Number of Questions Level of Difficulty
Quantitative Ability Arithmetic 2 Easy-Moderate
Numbers 3 Easy
Algebra 7 Easy-Difficult
Geometry, Mensuration and Trigonometry 2 Easy-Moderate
P&C and Probability 5 Easy-Difficult
Set theory 1 Moderate

Team Edmyt
Disclaimer: The analysis given above has been prepared by Edmyt experts. The information given here has no bearing on your actual score. Edmyt does not take responsibility for any discrepancy between information in this document and the actual result.