What VARC accuracy benchmark should candidates target for a competitive CAT score?
75% accuracy in VARC is the floor, not the goal, for candidates targeting IIM Ahmedabad. IIM-A's CAT cutoff for General category hovers around 99.5+ percentile overall, and the VARC section often separates shortlists from rejections.
Top scorers who receive IIM-A calls typically sustain 80-85% accuracy on 20-22 attempts, netting 45-51 marks in the section.
Why the Accuracy Floor Is 75%
The VARC section has 24 questions worth 72 marks, with a -1 penalty per wrong answer. At 75% accuracy on 20 attempts, you land roughly 45 net marks (15 correct × 3, minus 5 wrong × 1). That score typically maps to the 98-99 percentile range on a moderate-difficulty paper. Pushing to 80% accuracy on the same attempt volume clears 99.5+, which is where IIM-A's shortlist conversation starts for General category men (GEM cutoff around 99.74 percentile for the interview stage).
Accuracy Targets by Percentile Goal
| Percentile Target | Accuracy Needed | Attempts | Net Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95-97 | 65-70% | 18-20 | 33-39 |
| 98-99 | 75-78% | 20-22 | 39-45 |
| 99.5+ (IIM-A zone) | 80-85% | 20-22 | 45-51 |
The table assumes a standard difficulty paper. On a hard paper, 78% accuracy on 18 attempts can still clear 99+ percentile because raw scores compress.
The Comprehension Gap Most Candidates Miss
Volume of mocks alone will not lift accuracy from 55% to 80%. Candidates who run 40+ mocks without external reading typically plateau at 60-65% accuracy because they learn question patterns, not actual comprehension.
The fix is deliberate exposure to dense long-form writing: *The Economist*, *The Atlantic*, or academic review articles. These train you to track authorial tone, distinguish inference from fact, and follow multi-paragraph arguments, which is exactly what CAT RC tests.
Para-jumble and para-summary accuracy responds differently. These question types reward logical sequencing skills over reading speed.
Practicing with editorial pieces from *The Hindu* or *Mint* and then manually dismantling the argument structure builds the mental model faster than timed drills alone.
Where Accuracy Collapses Under Exam Conditions
Accuracy typically drops when you rush through the first RC to "save time" for later questions. This is a losing strategy. IIM-A's VARC section rewards depth on fewer passages over shallow coverage of all passages. Candidates who attempt 22-24 questions but hit only 65% accuracy consistently score below those who attempt 18-20 questions at 80% accuracy. Fewer attempts, higher precision wins.
Elimination also matters here. On inference-based RC questions, the strongest distractors are answers that are factually consistent with the passage but go one step beyond what the author actually claims.
Training yourself to flag "true but not stated" options improves accuracy by 5-8 percentage points without any speed change.
The IIM-A Interview Context
VARC performance signals more than a CAT number to IIM-A. The Written Ability Test and interview both probe reading comprehension, argument construction, and articulation of nuanced ideas.
Candidates who genuinely develop reading habits rather than gaming RC shortcuts tend to perform better in WAT-PI too, because the underlying skill is the same.
Pro Tip: After every mock RC passage, write one sentence summarizing the author's core argument in your own words before checking answers. This single habit closes the inference-accuracy gap faster than any technique drill.