25+ Writing Ability Test topics for IIM admissions with sample outlines, multiple perspectives, and expert tips for each topic.
Aristotle
Rhetoric (4th Century BC)
Chip & Dan Heath
Made to Stick (2007)
Steven Pinker
The Sense of Style (2014)
George Orwell
Politics and the English Language (1946)
Daniel Kahneman
Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)
These topics are most likely to appear in IIM interviews this year based on current affairs relevance.
Introduction: Open with India's 15+ million gig workers statistic. State that the answer lies in regulation, not binary judgment.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Call for portable benefits and platform accountability while preserving flexibility.
IIM panelists value nuanced takes. Acknowledge both sides, then propose a solution.
Introduction: Reference the recent Banking Laws Amendment Bill discussions. State your nuanced position upfront.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Advocate for selective privatization while strengthening regulation.
IIMC loves this topic. Know NPA numbers, recent bank mergers, and NARCL (bad bank).
Introduction: Start with Apple's production shift to India as hook. State qualified optimism.
Body Points:
Conclusion: India can capture significant share, but not fully replace China. Focus on specific sectors.
Show you understand both the opportunity and execution challenges. Mention specific sectors like electronics, pharma, or textiles.
Introduction: Reference India's 30% crypto tax as context. Position: regulate, don't ban.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Advocate for innovation-friendly regulation over prohibition.
Know the difference between crypto, blockchain, DeFi, and CBDC. Show you understand the technology.
Introduction: Reference CHIPS Act, EU supply chain laws. State: globalizing differently, not deglobalizing.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Hyper-globalization is over. Managed, regionalized globalization is emerging.
Show nuance — hyper-globalization is ending, not all globalization. Know specific examples (CHIPS Act).
Introduction: Reference the Law Commission's recent consultations. State that implementation matters more than principle.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Support UCC in principle but advocate for consultative process.
This is politically sensitive. Focus on gender equality and process, not religious identity.
Introduction: Open with a specific example (WhatsApp lynchings or COVID misinformation). State: tool, not villain.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Social media is a tool. Focus on building media literacy and platform regulation.
Use specific examples from India (WhatsApp University, COVID misinformation) to ground your argument.
Introduction: Reference recent data on SC/ST representation. State: still needed, but needs reform.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Don't abolish, but evolve the policy with economic criteria and sunset clauses.
This is a sensitive topic. Lead with empathy and data, not ideology. Know the 50% cap from Indira Sawhney case.
Introduction: Reference RTO mandates by major companies (Amazon, Google). State: hybrid is the lasting change.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Pure WFH won't dominate, but work will never return fully to pre-pandemic model. Hybrid is permanent.
Show you're following the RTO vs WFH debate. Mention specific company examples.
Introduction: Reference ChatGPT's 100M users in 2 months. State: displacement is real, but adaptation is possible.
Body Points:
Conclusion: AI will transform, not destroy, work. Focus on transition support.
Show awareness of India's IT sector vulnerability and the need for reskilling programs.
Introduction: Reference recent deepfake videos in elections. State: labeling is necessary with practical limitations.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Mandatory for political/news content, voluntary guidelines for creative content.
This is relatively new. Show awareness of recent developments like EU AI Act and OpenAI's watermarking.
Introduction: Reference both UPI success (10 billion transactions) and internet access gap. State: rapid progress with remaining gaps.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Digital inclusion is improving but needs parallel analog channels for transition.
Balance the narrative — India's digital progress is real, but gaps exist. Propose hybrid solutions.
Introduction: Reference EU AI Act and recent AI safety discussions. State: risk-based regulation, not blanket rules.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Support tiered regulation based on risk level, with international coordination.
Know India's AI Mission and the EU AI Act basics. This is a hot topic in 2026.
Introduction: Reference the Kovind Committee report. State: appealing in theory, complex in practice.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Worth exploring with pilot projects, but constitutional amendments need careful consideration.
Know the Kovind Committee recommendations. This shows current affairs depth.
Introduction: Reference India's Russia oil imports despite Western criticism. State: autonomy possible but requires constant balancing.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Strategic autonomy is more aspiration than fixed state. Requires continuous calibration.
Show nuance. India's balancing act is impressive but faces real constraints. Know specific examples.
Introduction: Reference Chandrayaan-3 success and spending comparison. State: false dichotomy.
Body Points:
Conclusion: India can and should do both. The budget isn't the constraint.
Always compare ISRO budget to other spending (MGNREGA, defense). The dichotomy is false.
Introduction: Reference India's 2070 net-zero pledge vs 2050 demands. State: false dichotomy, green growth is possible.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Demand climate justice (finance, tech transfer) while pursuing sustainable development.
Know India's NDCs and the climate finance debate. Use per capita emissions data, not total emissions.
Introduction: Reference EV sales growth (40%+ YoY). State: ready for two-wheelers, not yet for cars.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Segment-by-segment transition is realistic. Full EV adoption needs 10+ year horizon.
Differentiate between two-wheelers (ready) and cars (not ready). Know FAME-II scheme basics.
Introduction: Reference Article 19(2) which already provides restrictions. State: limits yes, but narrowly defined.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Support narrowly tailored restrictions with strong judicial oversight.
Know Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2). Reference the sedition law (Section 124A) debate for current context.
Introduction: Open with a provocative example (demonetization, emergency lockdown). State: context matters, but process shapes outcome.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Neither pure consequentialism nor pure deontology. Judge case-by-case with clear principles.
Use real examples (demonetization, lockdown, historical events). Show philosophical awareness.
Introduction: Reference Ukraine or Gaza as current context. State: reducing war is imperative, eliminating it may be idealistic.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Work toward minimizing wars while maintaining defensive capabilities.
Ground abstract topics in current events. Reference specific conflicts to show current awareness.
Introduction: Acknowledge religion's dual nature. State: the institution, not the impulse, is the problem.
Body Points:
Conclusion: Personal spirituality is valuable. Institutional religion needs reform and secularization of public sphere.
This is sensitive. Stay philosophical, avoid specific religions. Distinguish faith from organized religion.
Forget the generic advice. These are the differentiators that IIM evaluators consistently reward.
The best WAT essays don't hedge. Your opening line should tell the reader exactly where you stand — and the rest of the essay should defend that position relentlessly. Fence-sitting feels safe but scores poorly. Evaluators want to see conviction and the ability to commit to a position under pressure.
Generic claims like "this will help the economy" don't impress anyone. One concrete example beats five abstract arguments. Reference actual policies, real companies, specific data points. "India's UPI processed 12 billion transactions last month" lands differently than "digital payments are growing."
Don't summarize what you just said — everyone does that. End with what your argument means for the future. What should happen next? What's at stake if we don't act? A forward-looking close shows you can think beyond the obvious.
WAT is just the warm-up. The real test is when the panel probes your stance in the PI that follows. Practice both with AI that knows what IIMs look for.