The Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025, conducted by the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Kozhikode, took place on November 30, 2025. The exam was administered in a computer-based format across 170 cities and 375 test centers in India. It consisted of three slots from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM.

Following the conclusion of Slot 3, analysis indicated that the overall difficulty level was moderately difficult compared to CAT 2024. Candidates aiming for a percentile of around 99% were expected to have correctly answered between 25 and 27 questions out of a total of 68 questions across all sections.

In Slot 3, the Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC) section was rated as easy to moderate with students having approximately eight to nine doable questions out of twenty-four within a time limit of forty minutes. The Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning (DILR) section presented moderate difficulty with five to six doable questions from twenty-two total questions also allotted forty minutes. The Quantitative Ability (QA) section was deemed the most challenging among the three, with five to six doable questions identified within its twenty-two question framework.

Feedback from test-takers suggested that while Slot 3's difficulty mirrored that of previous years, it leaned slightly more towards challenging than earlier iterations. Experts are expected to provide detailed analyses for each slot shortly after the exams conclude.

Overall assessments indicated that Slot 2 maintained similar difficulty levels as Slot 1 but was perceived as slightly easier in terms of DILR and VARC sections. In contrast, Slot 1 had been characterized as tricky compared to prior years' exams.

As candidates await further insights into their performance and strategies for improvement based on this year's testing experience, they are encouraged to review their approaches critically in preparation for future assessments.

Original article (entitlement)

The article provides an overview of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025, including its structure, difficulty levels, and some insights from test-takers. However, upon closer examination, it lacks actionable information and practical guidance for readers.

First, there are no clear steps or instructions that a reader can follow to improve their performance on the CAT or similar exams. While it mentions expected scores for achieving a certain percentile and gives a breakdown of question difficulty across sections, it does not provide strategies for tackling these sections effectively. Readers looking for concrete advice on study techniques or exam strategies will find this article lacking.

In terms of educational depth, the article presents some surface-level facts about the exam's structure and difficulty but fails to delve into underlying concepts or reasoning that would help candidates understand how to prepare better. For instance, while it mentions that certain sections were easier or more difficult than in previous years, it does not explain why this might be the case or how candidates can adapt their study habits accordingly.

Regarding personal relevance, while the CAT is significant for many students aiming for management programs in India, the information is primarily relevant to those specifically preparing for this exam. Therefore, its impact is limited to a relatively small group rather than having broader implications.

The public service function of the article is minimal; it recounts details about an event without offering guidance on preparation or improvement strategies. There are no warnings or safety guidance provided that would help candidates navigate potential challenges related to taking such an important exam.

When evaluating practical advice within the article, any tips offered are vague and lack specificity. The mention of "doable questions" does not translate into actionable steps that readers can take during their preparation process.

In terms of long-term impact, while understanding trends in exam difficulty may help future candidates prepare better over time if they analyze past patterns critically, this piece does not offer lasting benefits beyond immediate context about CAT 2025.

Emotionally and psychologically speaking, while some may find comfort in knowing they are not alone in facing challenges during exams based on peer feedback mentioned in the article, there is little constructive guidance provided to alleviate anxiety surrounding test preparation.

Finally, there are elements within the text that could be seen as clickbait—such as emphasizing slight differences in difficulty levels without providing substantial insights into what those differences mean practically for test-takers.

To add real value where this article falls short: individuals preparing for exams like CAT should focus on developing effective study habits by creating structured study schedules that allocate time across different subjects based on personal strengths and weaknesses. They should practice with past papers under timed conditions to simulate real testing environments and identify areas needing improvement. Joining study groups can also provide support and diverse perspectives on problem-solving approaches. Additionally, seeking out resources such as online courses or tutoring can enhance understanding of challenging topics. Finally, maintaining a balanced routine with breaks will help manage stress levels leading up to exam day.

The examination system described, particularly the Common Admission Test (CAT), reflects a broader societal trend that can have significant implications for family structures and community dynamics. The emphasis on standardized testing and competitive academic environments often places immense pressure on students, which can inadvertently fracture familial bonds and diminish the responsibilities traditionally held by parents and extended kin.

In this context, the focus on performance metrics—such as percentiles and question difficulty—can overshadow the essential duties of nurturing children. Parents may become preoccupied with their children's academic achievements at the expense of fostering emotional support, resilience, and holistic development. This shift in priorities can lead to a neglect of critical family interactions that are vital for instilling values of trust, responsibility, and care within kinship networks.

Moreover, when educational success is framed primarily through competitive exams like CAT, it may create an environment where families feel compelled to rely on external validation rather than internal cohesion. This reliance on standardized measures can erode local accountability as families increasingly defer to institutional assessments rather than engaging in meaningful discussions about their children's needs. Such dynamics risk creating dependencies that weaken familial ties and diminish individual agency within households.

The pressures associated with high-stakes testing also extend to elders within families. As younger generations focus intensely on academic performance to secure future opportunities, there is a danger that the wisdom and care provided by older family members may be undervalued or overlooked. This neglect not only impacts intergenerational relationships but also undermines the stewardship role elders play in guiding youth through life's complexities.

Furthermore, if these trends continue unchecked—where educational systems prioritize competition over collaboration—the long-term consequences could be dire for community cohesion. Families may become isolated in their pursuit of individual success rather than working together to support one another's growth. The erosion of shared responsibilities towards children’s upbringing could lead to lower birth rates as individuals prioritize personal achievement over procreation—a fundamental aspect of community survival.

In essence, if society continues down this path without addressing these issues directly—by reinforcing local accountability among families and fostering environments where emotional well-being is prioritized alongside academic success—the very fabric that binds communities together will fray. Children yet unborn may find themselves growing up in fragmented households lacking strong kinship ties or guidance from both parents and elders alike.

To counteract these trends effectively requires a recommitment to ancestral principles: recognizing that survival depends not solely on achievements measured by tests but also on nurturing relationships grounded in trust, responsibility, and care for one another’s well-being. Families must actively engage with each other—not just as units striving for external validation but as interconnected networks dedicated to mutual support across generations.

Ultimately, if we fail to address these shifts towards impersonal standards at the expense of familial duty—if we allow competitive pressures to dictate our values—we risk jeopardizing not only our children’s futures but also the very essence of community life itself: a cohesive network committed to protecting life through love, stewardship of resources, and unwavering dedication to one another's welfare.

The text describes the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025 and mentions that "the overall difficulty level was moderately difficult compared to CAT 2024." This comparison might create a bias by implying that the current test is not as challenging as previous ones, which can lead readers to feel reassured about their performance. The wording suggests a standard of difficulty that may not be universally applicable, potentially downplaying the experiences of those who found it more challenging.

When discussing Slot 3, the text states that "the Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension (VARC) section was rated as easy to moderate." This phrasing could mislead readers into thinking that most candidates found this section manageable. By using terms like "rated" without specifying who conducted this rating, it obscures the source of this judgment and may imply a consensus where there might not be one.

The description of Slot 1 being characterized as "tricky compared to prior years' exams" introduces a bias by framing it negatively. The word "tricky" carries connotations of unfairness or confusion, which could influence how candidates perceive their performance in this slot. This choice of words may evoke feelings of frustration among test-takers who struggled with its challenges.

In discussing candidate expectations for achieving high percentiles, the text states that those aiming for around 99% were expected to have answered between 25 and 27 questions correctly out of a total of 68 questions. This presents an absolute expectation without acknowledging individual differences in preparation or ability. It can create pressure on candidates by suggesting there is a clear benchmark they must meet, potentially overlooking diverse experiences among test-takers.

Lastly, when mentioning feedback from test-takers about Slot 3's difficulty mirroring previous years but leaning slightly more towards challenging, it implies an overall trend without providing specific data or examples. This vague assertion can mislead readers into believing there is a significant shift in difficulty when there may not be enough evidence to support such a claim. The lack of concrete details allows for speculation rather than grounded conclusions about the exam's nature.

The text conveys a range of emotions that reflect the experiences and sentiments surrounding the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025. One prominent emotion is anxiety, which is subtly expressed through phrases like "candidates aiming for a percentile of around 99%" and "expected to have correctly answered between 25 and 27 questions." This anxiety is strong as it highlights the pressure candidates feel to perform well in a competitive environment. It serves to emphasize the high stakes involved in the exam, guiding readers to understand the seriousness of preparation and performance.

Another emotion present is caution, particularly evident in descriptions of the difficulty levels across different sections. The terms "moderately difficult," "easy to moderate," and "most challenging" create an atmosphere of uncertainty about what candidates might face. This caution is significant as it prepares potential test-takers for varied experiences, suggesting they should approach their studies with care and adaptability.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of hopefulness reflected in phrases like “doable questions” within each section. This language implies that while challenges exist, there are also opportunities for success. The strength of this hopefulness lies in its ability to motivate candidates by indicating that achieving a good score is possible if they prepare adequately.

The text also evokes a sense of camaraderie among test-takers through shared experiences described in feedback from students about Slot 3’s difficulty mirroring previous years yet being slightly more challenging. This shared experience fosters connection among candidates, encouraging them to reflect on their own strategies collectively rather than feeling isolated in their struggles.

These emotions guide readers' reactions by creating sympathy for candidates facing pressure while simultaneously inspiring action toward better preparation strategies. The writer uses emotionally charged language such as “tricky” and “challenging,” which adds weight to the descriptions of each slot's difficulty level. Such choices elevate emotional impact by making situations feel more intense than neutral descriptions would convey.

Moreover, repetition plays a role in reinforcing these emotions; mentioning various difficulties across slots emphasizes not only how crucial it is for candidates to be aware but also how common these feelings are among peers preparing for similar challenges. By framing information this way, the writer persuades readers that understanding these emotional landscapes can lead them toward improved performance.

In conclusion, through careful word choice and emotional framing, this analysis shapes how readers perceive both the exam's challenges and their own preparedness while encouraging them towards proactive engagement with their study methods.