The Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025 was conducted by the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Kozhikode on November 30, 2025, across three slots. The third slot concluded at 6:30 PM and has been analyzed for its difficulty level and recommended good attempts.

Overall, the difficulty level of CAT 2025 Slot 3 was assessed as moderate to difficult, slightly more challenging than the previous year. The exam consisted of a total of 68 questions across three sections: Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC), Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning (DILR), and Quantitative Ability (QA). Students had a total of 120 minutes to complete the test.

In VARC, which included 24 questions, the difficulty was categorized as easy to moderate. Test-takers were expected to answer about 8 to 9 questions correctly for a score in the top percentile. DILR featured 22 questions and was deemed moderately difficult, with around 5 to 6 correct answers needed for a competitive score. QA emerged as the most challenging section with also 22 questions; students were advised that achieving about 5 to 6 correct answers would be optimal.

For those aiming for a high percentile score overall, it is suggested that students should aim for between 25 and 27 correct attempts across all sections combined. Comparatively, while VARC's difficulty remained similar to last year’s exam, DILR was notably more difficult than in CAT 2024.

The analysis provided insights into each section's performance expectations based on feedback from test-takers and expert evaluations.

Original article

The article provides a detailed overview of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025, specifically focusing on the third slot's difficulty level and recommended attempts for each section. However, let's break down its value point by point.

First, in terms of actionable information, the article does offer some guidance on what students should aim for in terms of correct answers across different sections. It suggests that to achieve a high percentile score overall, students should target between 25 and 27 correct attempts combined from all sections. This is practical advice that can help test-takers set realistic goals. However, it lacks specific strategies or study tips to achieve these targets.

Regarding educational depth, while the article provides insights into the difficulty levels of each section and how they compare to previous years, it does not delve into why certain questions are categorized as easy or difficult. It lacks an explanation of how these assessments were made or what specific types of questions contributed to these classifications.

In terms of personal relevance, this information is significant for individuals preparing for CAT as it directly impacts their study plans and test-taking strategies. However, its relevance is limited to those specifically preparing for this exam; others may find little value in this content.

The public service function is minimal here; while it informs prospective candidates about the exam's structure and expectations, it does not provide broader warnings or guidance that would benefit a wider audience.

When evaluating practical advice given in the article, while there are some clear targets mentioned (correct answer counts), there are no concrete steps provided on how to improve performance in each section or prepare effectively for the exam itself. This lack of detail diminishes its usefulness.

Looking at long-term impact, while understanding CAT's structure can aid immediate preparation efforts for prospective students aiming for business school admission, there are no suggestions offered that would help them develop better study habits or long-term academic skills beyond this single event.

On emotional and psychological impact, the article remains neutral; it neither instills fear nor offers encouragement but simply presents facts about an examination process without addressing potential anxieties related to test-taking.

Lastly, regarding clickbait language or sensationalism—there is none present here. The article maintains a straightforward tone without exaggeration or dramatic claims.

In conclusion, while the article provides some useful information regarding CAT 2025 Slot 3’s difficulty levels and suggested attempts per section—valuable insights indeed—it falls short in offering comprehensive guidance on preparation strategies and deeper educational context about question types and effective studying methods.

To enhance what was missing from this analysis: readers preparing for exams like CAT could benefit from developing a structured study plan that includes regular practice tests under timed conditions similar to those they will face during actual exams. They might consider joining study groups where they can discuss challenging topics with peers or seek out online resources such as video tutorials focused on specific areas like Data Interpretation techniques or logical reasoning puzzles. Additionally, reflecting on past performance through mock exams can help identify strengths and weaknesses over time so candidates can adjust their focus accordingly leading up to test day.

The analysis of the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025 reveals a focus on individual achievement and academic performance, which, while important for personal development, can inadvertently undermine the foundational bonds that sustain families and communities. The emphasis on competitive scores and percentile rankings may lead to an environment where individuals prioritize personal success over collective well-being. This shift can weaken the kinship ties that are essential for nurturing children and caring for elders.

In a society where academic pressure is paramount, there is a risk that parents may become so absorbed in their own pursuits or those of their children that they neglect broader familial responsibilities. The drive to achieve high scores can create an atmosphere of competition rather than collaboration within families, diminishing the natural duties of parents to foster not only educational growth but also emotional support and guidance. This focus on individualism can fracture family cohesion as members become more isolated in their quests for success.

Moreover, when educational systems prioritize metrics such as test scores over holistic development, they may inadvertently impose economic dependencies on families. Parents might feel compelled to invest heavily in tutoring or preparatory courses at the expense of time spent with children or engaging with extended family members. Such financial burdens can strain resources and diminish the ability to care for vulnerable family members like elders or younger siblings who require attention and support.

The competitive nature of exams like CAT also risks shifting responsibilities away from local kinship networks toward impersonal institutions. Families may begin to rely more heavily on external authorities—such as educational institutions—to dictate how children should be raised academically, thereby undermining parental authority and local customs related to education. This detachment from community-based values weakens trust among neighbors and diminishes shared responsibilities that have historically ensured mutual support during challenging times.

In terms of stewardship over resources—both human and environmental—the relentless pursuit of high academic performance could lead families to overlook sustainable practices in favor of immediate gains associated with educational achievements. If communities prioritize test results over nurturing relationships with land and each other, they risk neglecting the very foundations upon which future generations depend.

If these trends continue unchecked, we face a future where families become increasingly fragmented; children may grow up without strong familial bonds or community ties essential for their emotional development. Trust will erode as individuals become more focused on personal accolades rather than collective responsibility. The result will be diminished care for both children yet unborn—who need stable environments—and elders who require ongoing support from their kin.

Ultimately, if we do not address these issues by fostering environments where academic achievement coexists with strong family values rooted in duty and care for one another, we jeopardize our survival as cohesive communities capable of sustaining life across generations. It is imperative that we return to principles that emphasize local accountability—where each member recognizes their role in protecting life through daily deeds rather than merely seeking accolades defined by external measures.

The text describes the difficulty of the CAT 2025 exam as "moderate to difficult," which may create a sense of urgency or concern among readers. This choice of words can lead readers to believe that the exam is particularly challenging, potentially causing anxiety for prospective test-takers. The phrase "slightly more challenging than the previous year" suggests a comparison that may not be fully supported by evidence within the text, making it seem like this year's candidates face a significantly tougher situation.

When discussing VARC, it states that students were expected to answer "about 8 to 9 questions correctly for a score in the top percentile." This wording implies a specific expectation without providing context on how these numbers were determined. It could mislead readers into thinking there is a clear formula for success when in reality, performance can vary widely based on numerous factors.

The analysis mentions DILR was "notably more difficult than in CAT 2024," but does not provide any specific data or examples to support this claim. By using strong language like "notably," it creates an impression of significant change without backing it up with facts. This could lead readers to believe there has been an objective increase in difficulty when this assertion remains unverified.

In discussing QA as the most challenging section, stating that students should aim for “about 5 to 6 correct answers would be optimal” presents an absolute guideline without acknowledging individual differences among test-takers. This could mislead students into thinking they must conform strictly to these numbers rather than understanding their personal strengths and weaknesses in various sections. It simplifies complex performance metrics into easily digestible but potentially misleading advice.

The overall recommendation for aiming between “25 and 27 correct attempts across all sections combined” lacks context about how this number was derived or its implications for different types of students. Such specificity can create pressure on candidates who might feel they need to meet these exact figures despite varying levels of preparation and ability. The absence of diverse perspectives on what constitutes success could skew perceptions about performance expectations unfairly.

By stating that VARC's difficulty remained similar while DILR was more difficult, the text implicitly praises VARC while criticizing DILR without offering balanced insights into both sections' challenges and opportunities for improvement. This selective focus may lead readers to undervalue their preparation efforts in one area while overemphasizing another, creating an imbalance in perceived importance among different sections of the exam.

The phrase “feedback from test-takers and expert evaluations” suggests credibility but does not specify who these experts are or how representative their feedback is. This vagueness allows readers to assume authority behind these claims without verifying their legitimacy or relevance, which can mislead them regarding what constitutes reliable information about exam performance expectations.

The text about the Common Admission Test (CAT) 2025 conveys a range of emotions that shape the reader's understanding and reaction to the exam experience. One prominent emotion is anxiety, which arises from phrases like "moderate to difficult" and "slightly more challenging than the previous year." This language suggests that test-takers may feel nervous about their performance, especially since the difficulty level has increased. The mention of specific numbers regarding expected correct answers—such as needing "about 8 to 9 questions correctly" in VARC or "5 to 6 correct answers" in DILR—heightens this anxiety by setting clear expectations that may seem daunting.

Another emotion present is encouragement, particularly in the recommendations for achieving high scores. Phrases like “aim for between 25 and 27 correct attempts” serve to motivate students, suggesting that while the exam is challenging, success is attainable with effort. This encouragement can inspire action among readers, pushing them to prepare diligently for future attempts at similar exams.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of pride associated with achieving a high percentile score. The text implies that reaching these benchmarks reflects not just knowledge but also hard work and determination. By highlighting what constitutes a competitive score, it fosters a sense of accomplishment among those who meet or exceed these expectations.

The writer employs emotional language strategically throughout the analysis. Words such as "challenging," "expected," and "optimal" are chosen not only for their informational value but also for their ability to evoke feelings related to pressure and aspiration. The use of comparative phrases like “notably more difficult than in CAT 2024” emphasizes change and can provoke concern about one’s preparedness while simultaneously motivating students to rise above challenges.

These emotional cues guide readers toward specific reactions: they create sympathy for those facing increased difficulty while also building trust through expert evaluations of performance expectations. By framing the test experience with both anxiety-inducing elements and encouraging advice, readers are likely inspired to take proactive steps in their preparation.

Overall, through careful word choice and emotional framing, the writer effectively persuades readers by emphasizing both challenges and achievable goals within CAT 2025's context. This dual approach not only informs but also engages students emotionally, prompting them toward reflection on their capabilities while instilling hope for success despite difficulties ahead.