IIFT 2013 has followed the 2012 paper pattern where the paper had four sections but DILR as well as Verbal Ability were split into 2 sub-sections each. DILR was a common section comprising two sub-sections for LR and DI. Similarly, Verbal Ability was a common section comprising two sub-sections for VA and RC. The section on Verbal Ability was easier compared to 2012. DI was easy but time consuming whereas LR could have been solved very quickly. The QA section had a mix of some sitters interspersed between high quality questions. Overall, speed was the crucial factor in this paper.
The tradition of having a different number of questions in each section and different marks for questions in different sections continued.
The paper surprisingly, was not sealed. Hence, students opportunistically glanced at the paper when the invigilator was not looking.
Number of Sections
4 (with sub-sections)
Options per Question
1/3rd of marks for the question
Marks per Question
Expected Overall Cut-offs
50 - 52
RC section, like last year, had 4 passages. Each of the passages used straight forward language but was almost two pages long and had 4 questions following it. Out of the sixteen questions, eleven were directly based on the text in the passage. Three questions related to identifying to the correct/ incorrect/ false statement but they were also based on the text. There was one vocabulary based question on the word “conundrum”. One question was inference based. A good reading speed would enable 11-13 attempts in about 20 minutes.
The VA section contained 20 questions in all. Out of the twenty questions twelve were vocabulary driven. The three grammar-related questions were of a higher level of difficulty and required knowledge of grammatical rules to solve them. The two jumbled sentence questions were straight forward. The two fill in the blanks questions were easy to solve, once the meaning of the sentence was ascertained. The figure of speech question was based on a very simple application of simile. 10 to 12 questions could easily be attempted in around 10 minutes.
The data interpretation section was a mixed bag in terms of difficulty level. Three out of four sets were simple and should have been attempted as they were mainly based on observing and choosing the correct values from the given tables However, the set on number of factories and workers was calculation intensive and hence, time consuming. One or two questions in this set could have been solved by smart calculations though. A good strategy would have been to attempt the other three sets first (i.e. 14 out of 19 questions), move on to the other sections and then come back to this set depending on the time left. 13-14 correct answers would be a very good attempt in this section.
The logical reasoning section was the simplest section in the paper. Apart from the complex arrangement set (professors from different institutions), the other 14 questions were extremely simple and could have been attempted in 12-15 minutes. The complex arrangement question could then have been solved in another 10-15 minutes. A good performance in this section would be 16-17 correct answers in around half an hour.
General Knowledge and Current Affairs:
The G.K section covered a wide range of questions including sports, banking, history, politics, society and industry. Overall it was a manageable section provided one had kept himself or herself up-to-date with current affairs. However, the proportion of static GK was higher this year. For the ‘match the column’ type of questions, some of the options could be eliminated rather easily. One could have attempted 12-13 questions, irrespective of background.
There were 5 questions on P&C and Probability, in which the P&C questions were easy. There were 3-4 questions, where one could have saved time by substituting values from options. The questions on number theory were very easy, with one sitter in this lot. Almost all the arithmetic and geometry questions were doable. 13-14 questions could have been attempted in 30 minutes.