FMS 2009 Analysis

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.
Overall Paper
he paper consisted of ! sections
Section No. of Questions Level of Difficulty Possible attepts
"erbal #bility !$ Moderate to %ifficult $&' with a lower
attempts of ()
*eading
+omprehension
,- Moderate and
.engthy
(/ 0 $& with a lower
attempt of (!
*easoning !1 Moderate $-' with a lower
attempt of ()
2uantitati3e #bility !1 Moderate to %ifficult
and .engthy
$&' with a lower
attempt of (/
!"e li#ely cut off is e$pecte% to be on t"e "i&"er 200s.
Section'(ise Analysis
)erbal Ability
his section li3ed up to its regular standards and was on predictable pattern with the section
filled with a lot of 3ocabulary questions. 4f one had gone through the comparati3e analysis
posted on the website 0 this section should not ha3e surprised the students.
5hile, the students should ha3e definitely attempted the one word substitutions, idioms, some
antonyms, analogies, contextual usage, and best a3oided the syllogisms that had a higher
difficulty. +onsidering the lower emphasis on 3ocabulary for +# 0 students relying on their
3erbal reasoning must ha3e found this section difficult.
4deal time allotment 0 $- minutes for the abo3e mentioned return with )-6 accuracy
*ea%in& +opre"ension
his section was also on the predicted lines as gi3en in the comparati3e analysis with a good
mix of direct and inference questions. here were total - passages with 7 questions each.
8ut there was no respite as all the passages were lengthy with word range of (&&& 0 ($&&. 4f
the students had worked on their reading speed and aligned with the technique of looking at
the questions and reading the passage 0 then students could ha3e possibly attempted around
$&2 otherwise a selection of $ passages and attempting all the questions in a time span of ,&
minutes was possible. Since, the le3el of questions were easy to moderate being more direct 0
the accuracy in this section should ideally be higher and will play the key role.
Mainly, the section was testing the students9 ability to speed read with a high comprehension,
which is a departure from +# that tests students9 ability to infer.
*easonin&
he section was the only relief with the le3el of difficulty being moderate. he top performers
are likely to ha3e higher scores here and hence the sectional cut-off is likely to mo3e up.
he indi3idual questions on crypto-arithmetic and series, ma:ority of the data arrangements,
input-output diagram, and family tree were possible attempts followed by others. he critical
reasoning questions were comparati3ely more difficult than the #nalytical reasoning; hence
the right selection of questions will be key to maximising scores in this section.
Quantitative Ability
4t was a definite departure from the usual FMS paper of moderate Math section. #s predicted
in the comparati3e analysis 0 a good preparation would ha3e helped students from being
surprised.
hough the section offered a :udicious mix of 3arious sub-skill questions, it was time
consuming and calculation intensi3e. 5ith a already harried by the number of questions to
attempt in $ hrs from a total of (7- questions, this was no easy section this time.
Students should ha3e ideally aimed for higher accuracy and limiting the number of attempts
by curbing the urge to attempt more. For the arithmetic lo3ers 0 there were the regular
percentages, profit and loss, interest, partnership, S%, and ratio<proportion. 4n algebra 0
=>+, probability; geometry 0 trigonometry, conics; modern math, =hysics and statistics 0 the
skill set was di3erse.
he %ata 4nterpretation consisted of $ sets 0 8ar graph and able each consisting !2 and both
were time consuming.
#n allotment of !& minutes for a return of (/' questions would ha3e been a good attempt.
,it" t"e ne( sectional percentile in place - stu%ents s"oul% "ave i%eally attepte% not
less t"an ./ - .0 1uestions in eac" of t"e section to ensure clearin& t"e sectional cut'off
an% a#in& it to t"e final list.