JMET 2010

JMET 2010 did not come up with any novelty in terms of the overall structure of the test. The same pattern that we had seen last year was repeated – 120 questions to be solved in 180 minutes. Correct answers carry 1 mark each and negative marking of 0.25 for each incorrect answer. Students who have solved our JMET test papers 1 and 2 this year would have found most of the constructs very familiar. This would have helped him/her in formulating the appropriate strategy in maximizing the scores. Moreover, students who had attended our Maths and Verbal workshops would have found many question types that were very similar to the ones solved in the workshops. In terms of level of difficulty, JMET has set a standard of its own – difficult quant section, slightly easier verbal section, tricky LR section – and that has been repeated this year too.

The test had 4 sections, each containing 30 questions. The instructions page clearly mentioned that one had to necessarily obtain certain minimum marks in each of the four sections.

Overview

Section 1 - Verbal Communication - This section had questions on verbal ability as well as reading comprehension.
Reading Comprehension - This year there were 14 questions on reading comprehension instead of 12 of last year. The questions were based on 4 passages of medium length. The questions were a mix of direct and inferential questions. But even for direct questions, one had to carefully consider of the passage before negating the options. Understanding the passages was not a major hindrance while answering the questions. The questions required you to understand and interpret the passages. There were 3 word-based questions based on the passages. The passage on Knowledge and philosophical thought was dense.
Grammar Based Questions - There were a variety of questions testing the basics of grammar like: identifying the grammatically correct sentence, identifying the correct and incorrect sentence after unscrambling them, converting from direct to indirect speech, finding sentence conveying the same meaning as the stem sentence and finding the right sequel to the given sentences. The questions expected you to know the basic concepts of grammar and read the instructions carefully. Finding the sequel of the given sentences was a really tricky set that required one to understand the logic as well as consider the grammatical aspects while negating the options. Even the question on unscrambling the phrases and then identifying the correct sentence was a bit time consuming.
Vocabulary Based Questions - There were around 10 vocabulary-based questions and the questions were of the types like: fill in the blanks (double blanks), synonyms, antonyms, contextual usage and analogies. The words were quite difficult, e.g., eruct, nescience, preconize, etc. Here the questions, even the analogies, required a bit of thought and sound concepts. The fill in the blank question and the one on identifying the incorrect spelling were very easy.

A possible attempt in this section would be 15 to 18 questions with a possible score of 12 to 14 marks.

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning - Like last year, this year also had combination of logical and verbal reasoning questions. There were 17 verbal and 13 logical reasoning questions. Logical reasoning should have been preferred and attempted first to maximise the attempts in this section. One question ‘four persons Ahmed, Burman’ also appeared in JMET 2008 with data being same but option and question stem were modified. Also, in set based on family tree, questions mentioned one character as ‘Rita’ while all questions and options had ‘Geeta’. Therefore, this created unnecessary confusion. There were two sets each of 5 questions so; solving the sets actually covers 10 questions.

The verbal reasoning set had different types of critical reasoning questions and syllogisms. The format of the questions was similar to question patterns of JMET 2008 and 2009. The Syllogisms and Jumbled Paragraph questions were quite easy. In the Jumbled Paragraph sets identifying the introductory sentences and the connective links was not very difficult. The questions on strengthening /weakening statements and statement-conclusion types were quite tricky. The set on finding the appropriate deduction from a string of sentences was moderately difficult and time consuming.

A possible attempt in this section would be 20 to 22 questions with a possible score of 16 to 18 marks.

Section 3 - Quantitative Ability - This section was at comparatively at the higher level than that of the last year. In terms of the concepts, majority of the questions were based on geometry and student was expected to construct figure and arrive at the answer. There were also questions from arithmetic in which concept of time-speed-distance was dominant. Maximising score in this section was again dependent of selection of right set of questions. The underlying rule as always is selecting the questions based on ones strength. However, none of the questions were calculation intensive but were tricky.

A good attempt in this section would be 15 to 18 questions with a possible score of 12 to 14 marks.

Section 4 - Data Interpretation - This section was easier as compared to the other sections of the test and hence will help to improve the overall score. This section had seven sets with data representation in the form of line graph, bar graph, pie chart etc. There was good mix of the questions based on the sets involving simple and lengthy calculations. In two sets questions have to be solved based on mere observation.

A good attempt in this section would be 18 to 20 questions with a possible score of 14 to 16 marks.
Overall, a good attempt in this test should be 75 to 78 questions and a good score  of 75+ marks.