Total cut off – 97 (+/- 2)

English – 20,Gk – 25, Legal – 25,Logical – 18/20,Maths – 5/7

The paper was a little off the standard rigour of the AILET.

English was pretty much medium to difficult. There were 10 passage based questions, 5 word meanings through odd one out. There was a small spray of fill in the blanks in grammar. Another question on identification of parts of speech was there. Basic questions on identification of noun, verb, adjectives and adverbs. Remember the first class of grammar? Should be doable to get 22/25 marks.

 The General Knowledge section was also heavily current affairs centric with an omission of static almost entirely. There was a decent focus on economics as well with complete absence of history or geography questions (that was ). An ideal score would be 25 and above. There were inference based 6 questions with long passage analysis and multiple answers. Barring 10 questions rest was standard direct questions.

 The Legal section was new in terms of the facts given in the reasoning section. The law was mostly constitution  focused and the legal GK was primarily from current affairs and the budget. Unlike the earlier papers where we used to have a  fixed format of legal sections this year paper has laid a lot of emphasis on fundamental rights based questions. Additionally, new areas like sarfaesi act, and territorial jurisdiction, cause of action, coercive jurisdiction, subpoena orders to name a few have overwhelmingly been touched upon.  Be that as it may, one intriguing connect between legal reasoning questions and the current political developments can be very well established, which is a very positive shift and should be welcome as change like this has been overdue for a very long time! There were questions modelled on the facts of vijay maallya’s bank default, BCCI ( was conspicuously discussed in news on the issue of conflict of interest ) etc. This paper in unequivocal terms highlights that research oriented preparation which involves a lot of probing and inferential extraction is the new fad and the way forward! An ideal score should be somewhere above 25 at a minimum assuming somebody was a little weak on the Legal Gk section as well.

 The critical reasoning section was entirely paragraph based reasoning that were around 10 questions. No other questions were asked. Barring 3/4 dubious ones rest were sitters.

The analytical reasoning section was a fixed set questions from series and coding (largely easy). AR section had questions ranging from easy to moderate levels. There was a set on  Tabular arrangement and a puzzle on family tree both of which were sitters. One question each on clocks and calenders had appeared both easy. There was a conditional question on arrangement which was a bit tricky. Also, there were 2-3 questions on series, one of which was tricky. It would have taken around 12-15 mins to handle the entire section as all types questions were a part of training at CP.

The mathematics was quite doable with a standard set of predictable questions.unlike previous year the maths sections had questions on a easier side. 8-10 questions could have been easily solved in short span of time. Most of the questions were direct and from arithmetic. The paper saw questions ranging from profit loss – work time – time speed distance to probability and linear equations.  Any student who had constantly taken analysed the mocks of CP would have found no difficulty in handling these questions.Hopefully, most people who managed time, managed to score well.

Get THE LAW SCHOOLS GUIDE 2017 & 12 VOCABULARY Journals absolutely FREE!

The following two tabs change content below.

Get daily updates from Clat Possible