Over the years, XAT has gained a reputation of being ‘in-your-face’ challenging. Few people might consider changing that challenging part to stupid because of the sheer outrageousness (?) of the paper setters in creating papers which test something unique, something challenging, something probably beyond the realms of an average, unsuspecting aspirant. Even after the last so many years of test taking, I have seldom been able to pinpoint the reason behind the existence of such a selection of questions and that is probably why there is so much ‘awe’ associated with the test. We all like to be bamboozled, don’t we? Here we present the XAT 2016 analysis.

This year, XAT spiced things up a bit by releasing the instructions page of the test booklet. In hindsight, even if they had posted the entire booklet, there would still be quite a few with a question mark on their faces with regard to the “correct answers”.

The flavor of the season seemed to be nature. Right from the RCs to the decision making caselets to the final essay were focused on nature and more than a sprinkling of philosophy. Let’s look at the sections now.

XAT 2016 analysis

Verbal and Logical Ability 

There were 26 questions in total out of which 14 were Reading Comprehension passages, a question based on a poem (and a beautiful one at that), 4 critical reasoning questions, 3 vocabulary based questions, 2 parajumbles, one paragraph completion and one based on a proverb.

There were very few easy questions and the must attempt ones included the vocabulary based questions, the two parajumbles, the paragraph completion, a couple of questions from the communication passage, 3 fact based questions from the other passages. So, the ‘confident’ attempts could be somewhere around 10-12 while the rest would be more dependent on confidence/panic. Considering that the perception of 10 odd attempts would have been low, we expect many to have attempted around 15-16 questions with an accuracy close to 70% which would translate into a score of around 9 marks which should be enough to secure a 95+ percentile in this section at the very least. Any score above 12 marks should be outstanding and easily worth a 99+ score.

This year, XAT spiced things up a bit by releasing the instructions page of the test booklet. In hindsight, even if they had posted the entire booklet, there would still be quite a few with a question mark on their faces with regard to the “correct answers”.

Decision Making (XAT 2016 analysis)

There were 23 questions in the section out of which 18 were text based and more of the thinking type and 5 were data based and more of the calculating type. The questions were all moderate to difficult type and while they made for easy reading, the options were pretty close and were completely dependent on interpretation with no clear black and white areas.

The sets on licensed taxis, the one on the MLA of Trikathapur, the one with the saloons, and the one with Crunchy Chips were must attempts if one was looking to score well in this section. The sets were easy to read and questions were pretty straightforward. The data based set on the real estate projects was easy and although there was an error in one of the questions (marketing managers of all six projects), it could have been attempted. One could have attempted another couple of questions from the other sets as well and so, a good number of attempts would be around 16-17. With an accuracy of around 80%, a score of around 12 can be considered to be fairly good and should easily get a 95+ score. Any score of 15+ should be worth a 99+ in this section.

Quantitative Ability and Data Interpretation (XAT 2016 analysis)

This was probably the easiest part of the paper and with the biggest section in terms of marks (29 questions), the cutoffs for this section would eclipse the other two. The questions were moderate to difficult but the fact that the other sections were not lengthy meant that most candidates would have spent upside of an hour on this section leading to slightly inflated scores.

There were as many as 8 questions from geometry,7 data interpretation questions, a couple of data sufficiency questions, a time 4 time speed distance and time work questions, 6 questions based on arithmetic and functions and a question based on a 3 factor Venn diagram.

The must attempts were the question based on tiles, data sufficiency based question on marks, the question involving 3⁰, 3¹… 3¹⁰⁰, angles of the triangle, amusement part based on Venn diagrams, the one with two equilateral triangles, square piece of paper, circumscribed and inscribed circles, (a+b)^(a+b), the one with Pradeep, the functions based question, the one on base systems, the one on the maximum value of [abc – (a+b+c)]. Out of the two Data Interpretation sets, the one on shop types was doable.

So, a good aspirant could have attempted at least 15 questions with around 90% accuracy and so, a score of around 13-14 should be a strong performance in this section. Anything upside of 16 merits a 99+ score.

General Knowledge (XAT 2016 analysis)

The section was on the moderate side and with no negatives, aspirants would have attempted everything irrespective of whether they were confident or otherwise. There were around 5-6 sitters for a fair reader and for someone who was extremely well read, a score of 15+ was not out of reach. Compared to the nightmare that the SNAP 2015 GK section was, this would have come across as a relief to many aspirants.

Essay (XAT 2016 analysis)

The topic for this year’s essay was “Technology and nature are natural enemies.” The topic was fairly generic and a lot of candidates would have a lot to write about. The basics would remain the same – a well-constructed argument with an introduction, body and conclusion, with no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes and minimal corrections in legible handwriting. A few examples could have added some weight to the essay and would have rounded it off well.

Final words (XAT 2016 analysis)

Overall, the test was on the lines of last year’s XAT. All the hoopla about the test being easier compared to previous years was something that should not have been read into much as was expected. 30 odd marks in 170 minutes effectively meant more than 5 minutes per correct attempt and so, composure and selection was the key. Traditionally, a couple of 99s and a 95 are enough to get a huge score – 99.9+ overall and so, in our opinion, a 40+ score would be an outstanding achievement in the paper. The cut-off to get a BM call should be somewhere around 30-31 marks. A score of 34+ should fetch a 99+ in my opinion.

Unattempted questions

0.05 marks after 13 unattempted questions was too small a threat to get into the minds of the candidates and so, most would have been unaffected by this part of the structure. Assuming that there were 50 odd genuine attempts, the loss would be of around 0.25 marks in each section and so, not very relevant.

Keys, percentile predictors, gimmicks

Reviews are meant to give a well-rounded picture of the test for current as well as future aspirants and so, will be based on certain assumptions (even this one is). The aptitude and outlook of reviewers differ by quite a lot. One institute might say that there were 40 easy questions out of 78 and so, the cutoff is 40 but then, it does not consider the impact of the remaining 38 questions. Add to that the pressure of XAT and the terror that the paper creates in the mind of the aspirants and we get a much lower cutoff than what seems prima facie.

Keys will differ by a lot in these subjective papers and in a way, they are good for getting an indication of what to expect. However, things have been known to go ugly in the past when it comes to predictions and so, it would be my advice to not take all these seriously. Every key correction brings with it a difference of 1.25 marks to one aspirant’s score and a difference of 2.5 marks between two aspirants which is huge when it comes to such fine margins. The test has been done, the answers have been marked and if you are deserving enough, you would definitely end up some place nice in my experience.

The paper looked a bit like a pseudo-psychometric test and on a side note, I won’t be surprised if there are some secret briefs handed over to the interviewers on the basis of one’s answers/essays/patterns/etc. While this type of paper rules out preparation and focuses on an individual’s thought process, it is surely a nightmare for fixed-pattern sticklers and institutes who try to train people for this particular test. But if one let go of the thing that was beyond one’s control and focused on enjoying the paper, I am sure it would have led to a positive outcome.

My attempt and strategy (XAT 2016 analysis)

It took a bit of an effort to figure out the correct room and desk before the test. The arrangement was not particularly candidate friendly and I figured out that my room was on the fifth floor of the college. Seeing a big gathering in front of the elevator, I took the first ‘decision’ of the day to take the stairs instead.

The first thing that I saw was this

As was the case with IIFT, the invigilator allowed the test takers to look at the paper but not solve it, whatever that means (paper khol ke check kar sakte ho, lekin solve mat karna), Duh! Had figured out answers to at least a couple of quant questions before the exam started and had read the DM caselets. Don’t think it made a big difference though considering that it was a 170 minute test. Started with QADI and had finished 13 odd questions by the end of the first 30 minutes. Felt that the paper was a bit easier compared to last year and so, went to solve a bit of verbal. After a lot of head scratching and a few snorts, was too bored to continue with the section as everything looked exactly the same and so, left the section after attempting 6 questions in another 20 minutes. Made a mental note that this section was difficult and a single digit score would do. Went to the Decision Making section and found a bit of smooth sailing here. Many of the caselets were interesting and although the options were quite close and I was practically torn between the ethically correct and the practical solution, I gambled a bit and went ahead with and marked the ones I was confident about. 30 minutes into the section, I had attempted 15 and so, let go of this as well with another mental note to self: the paper looks a bit deceptive and another single digit score would do. Went back to quant and just rushed through the ones I had already done and figured out the ones that would have been difficult for many of the aspirants. Understood that this was a barely two digit section and so, focused all my energy here. Attempted another 10 questions in 30 minutes and went back to DM. Took a few risks in the remaining decision making caselets and figured out the answers to the data based caselets. Closed the decision making section with 21 attempts after another 20 minutes. I make it a point to mark all the answers at the end in two phases and so, had planned to start with the first phase at 1230. With 20 minutes to go, and all the RCs remaining, I attempted all the questions from the RCs, some thoughtful, and many tight ones. At the end of 150 minutes, attempts looked as follows: VLA: 24, DM: 21, QADI: 23. Marked the answers and had another 10 odd minutes to go. Went for the kill in the two DI sets and marked a couple on sheer visualization and logic. Was tempted a bit to go for the ‘100-candidates-will-attempt-all-78’ and gave in to it to mark the remaining 4-5 questions in VLA and DM and finished with 78 attempts. The feel that I got during the paper looked something like this:

(This note is just meant to emphasize the fact that having a flexible strategy in XAT pays most of the time. If you go with a rigid strategy, you might find yourself with disproportionate time allocation or could simply get terrified or bored with the paper which hurts a lot of aspirants. With cut-offs traditionally being low, a few moments of panic or boredom can affect one’s chances greatly.)

All the best to all the readers.

For those of who you have GDPI calls from B-schools, we will be having free GD sessions in Mumbai. You can join the group to stay updated about the important activities. Also check out our GDPI blog here.

Also, if you are looking to appear for MBA CET 2016, you can see the following links:

Free MBA CET Mocks | Free MBA CET Sectionals | MBA CET articles