Follow Us:
Thursday, October 22, 2020

XAT Exam 2016 analysis: Check the expected cut-off marks

Know section-wise analysis of XAT exam 2016

By: Express Web Desk | Updated: January 5, 2016 12:55:37 pm
xat 2016, xam exam analysis, xat exam cut-off, xat exam section wise analysis While XAT said this time there would be specific questions, however some ambiguous questions were also asked. (Photo:

XLRI Jamshedpur has conducted the Xavier Aptitude Test (XAT) 2016 on January 3, 2016 across various examination centers. We bring you section-wise analysis of the exam.

Section A : Verbal and Logical Ability
The Verbal Ability section was on the tougher side. While tougher VA sections are expected in XAT, this year there was some additional variety as well. One of the questions was based on a poem. There were no grammar based questions.

The RCs were or varied topics like communication, economic theory, objectivism, and philosophy of approximation. The breakup of topics is as below:

CR/Inference based qs – 5
Vocab – 3
PFQs- 3
Para Completion – 1
600 word RC based on Communication – 4
400 word RC based on Philosophy (Objectivism) – 3
300 word RC based on Philosophy (Approximation)- 4
300 word RC based on Economics – 3

50 minutes would be an ideal time allocation to this section

Section B : Decision Making

The decision making section, one-of-its-kind in the MBA entrances, continues to be a real tough nut to crack for many, including the very well prepared. This is due to in inherent nature of the questions which require the students to factor in multiple parameters while answering these questions. This section is expected to be the trump card in making or breaking the XAT dream for many.

The marked variation from last year was that there were two sets which had more of DI than decision making, and hence the section can be said to be a tad more doable.

Ideal time allocation for the section would be around 60 min.

Section C: Quantitative Ability and Data Interpretation

The set was a mix of doable and difficult questions. There were questions which were tricky as well and there were some which could have done with slightly better clarity (the tiles question and the question on pipes).

The section was overall, a lot more doable than the last year’s QADI. There were 8 questions from DI in 2 sets and both these sets were tough to crack. The set on categorisation can do with more clarity and the set on salaries had a thoroughly confusing graph. Both these sets were best left out.

Ideal time distribution for the section would be around 50 min.

Part 2 – General Knowledge

While XAT said this time there would be specific questions, however some ambiguous questions were also asked. The question on the best place to do business may have different answers based on the kind of survey that one is looking at.
The question on budget estimates needed a very deep insight into the financial/budgetary arena and not many would have got this.

This section would need not more than 10 minutes.

Part B – Essay
Essay Topic: Technology and nature are natural enemies

The topic was easy to understand. One could come up with multiple examples to counter or support this statement. Those who were not expecting such a direct topic would have been pleasantly surprised. Extra 10 minutes available (compared to last year) would also mean that the test takers would be under that much lesser pressure to come up with content.

Estimated cut-offs

An overall score of 34-36 should translate to about 94 percentile, which should help student secure a call for the BM program. An overall score of 31-33 should translate to about 90-91 percentile, which should help student secure a call for the PMIR programme.

The sectional cutoffs would be quite low at about 7-10 for QADI (PMIR-BM), 9-8 for VLA (PMIR-BM), 6 for DM (PMIR-BM).

— Courtesy T.I.M.E. Director, Ramnath Kanakadandi

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Education News, download Indian Express App.