OET Reading Part B & C Practice for Dentists: Full Sample Texts, Questions & Answer Explanations

Last updated: August 15, 2026

OET Reading Part B tests your ability to extract specific information quickly from short workplace texts — six of them, three questions each. Part C tests deeper comprehension of two longer, opinion-based healthcare texts — eight four-option multiple-choice questions each. Below is one full Part B set and one full Part C text, both built around dental-practice scenarios, with every answer explained against the actual text so you can see exactly why the correct option is correct and the distractors aren’t.

How OET Reading Part B and Part C actually work

Part B presents six short texts of the kind you’d genuinely encounter at work — a memo, an extract from a clinical guideline, a policy document, an email — each followed by three three-option multiple-choice questions (A/B/C). You have roughly 1 minute per question, which means skimming for the specific answer rather than reading the whole text closely. Part C presents two longer texts (around 800 words each) on a healthcare topic, usually discussing a debate, a piece of research, or a clinical approach, followed by eight four-option multiple-choice questions (A/B/C/D) that test overall understanding, writer’s opinion, and inference — not just fact-finding. The two parts test genuinely different skills, and candidates who prepare only with Part A-style scanning practice tend to underperform on Part C specifically, where you need to track an argument, not just locate a fact.

Part B — sample set (dental practice memo)

Text: Extract from an internal memo circulated to clinical staff at a dental practice.

To: All clinical staff
From: Practice Manager
Re: Updated protocol for suspected dental trauma in child patients

Following a recent incident review, all clinical staff are reminded that any child presenting with suspected dental trauma (avulsion, luxation, or fracture) must be triaged as same-day urgent, regardless of appointment availability. Reception staff have been instructed to interrupt any non-urgent consultation to inform the treating clinician immediately.

For avulsed permanent teeth specifically, if the tooth is available and intact, staff should advise the parent/guardian by phone to store it in the child’s own saliva or in milk — never in water or wrapped dry in tissue — and to bring both the child and the tooth in immediately. Replantation success drops significantly for every 5 minutes the tooth remains outside the socket beyond the first 15 minutes, so speed of advice matters more than perfect technique on the phone.

This protocol supersedes the 2024 trauma guidance. Please confirm you have read this memo by initialling the circulation sheet in the staff room by Friday.

Q1. According to the memo, what should reception staff do if a child arrives with suspected dental trauma?
A. Book them into the next available same-day slot
B. Interrupt an ongoing non-urgent consultation to alert the clinician
C. Advise the parent to call back for a formal appointment

Correct answer: B. The memo states staff “have been instructed to interrupt any non-urgent consultation to inform the treating clinician immediately” — this is a direct match, not an inference. Option A is a plausible-sounding distractor but understates the urgency the text actually specifies (interrupting a consultation, not just next-available booking). Option C contradicts the text’s explicit “same-day urgent” instruction.

Q2. What does the memo advise for storing an avulsed permanent tooth before the patient arrives?
A. Wrapped in dry tissue to keep it clean
B. In the child’s own saliva or in milk
C. In cold water to reduce swelling

Correct answer: B. Stated explicitly: “advise the parent/guardian by phone to store it in the child’s own saliva or in milk — never in water or wrapped dry in tissue.” Both A and C are directly and explicitly ruled out by the text itself (“never in water or wrapped dry in tissue”) — a classic Part B distractor technique: the wrong answers are the exact things the text tells you not to do.

Q3. What is implied about the timing of replantation advice?
A. Technique matters more than speed once the parent is on the phone
B. There is no time pressure as long as the tooth is stored correctly
C. Giving fast advice matters more than giving perfectly detailed advice

Correct answer: C. The text states “speed of advice matters more than perfect technique on the phone” — this question tests whether you can identify the writer’s stated priority, not just locate a fact. Option A directly inverts the text’s stated priority. Option B contradicts the explicit “for every 5 minutes… success drops” framing.

Part C — sample text (debate-style, dental topic)

Text: “Fluoride Varnish in School Dental Programmes: Is Universal Application Justified?”

Community dental health programmes in several countries have expanded school-based fluoride varnish application in recent years, applying varnish to all enrolled children regardless of individual caries risk. Proponents argue this universal approach maximises population-level reach and avoids the administrative burden and potential stigma of risk-stratifying children within a classroom setting. A 2023 multi-site cohort study found a 28% reduction in new carious lesions among children receiving twice-yearly varnish application compared to matched controls, a figure often cited as justification for programme expansion.

Critics, however, point to a less-discussed finding within the same study: when the cohort was stratified by baseline caries risk, the benefit was concentrated almost entirely among high-risk children, with low-risk children showing a reduction that did not reach statistical significance. This has led some public health dentists to argue that universal application represents an inefficient use of limited community dental budgets — resources spent applying varnish to low-risk children, they argue, could instead fund more intensive intervention for the smaller group of high-risk children who stand to benefit most.

The counterargument from universal-programme advocates is threefold. First, risk stratification itself carries a cost — trained personnel time, and the administrative infrastructure to track individual risk profiles across a shifting school population — that may exceed the savings from excluding low-risk children. Second, caries risk is not static; a child assessed as low-risk in one term may become high-risk following a change in diet or home circumstances, and universal programmes catch this drift automatically where targeted programmes may not. Third, and perhaps most persuasively, universal programmes avoid the equity problem inherent in risk-based exclusion: risk assessment tools have historically underperformed for children from some socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, meaning a targeted programme risks systematically under-serving exactly the populations community dental health initiatives are often designed to reach.

A middle position, gaining some traction among programme administrators, proposes universal baseline application with supplementary intensive intervention layered on top for children identified as high-risk — attempting to capture the equity and simplicity benefits of universal coverage while still directing extra resources where the evidence suggests they do the most good. Early pilot data from this hybrid model is promising but limited to a small number of sites, and long-term cost-effectiveness data is not yet available.

What is not in serious dispute, across all sides of this debate, is that fluoride varnish itself is safe and effective as an intervention when applied correctly. The disagreement is entirely about resource allocation and programme design, not about the underlying clinical evidence for varnish as a caries-prevention tool.

Q1. According to the text, what argument do proponents of universal fluoride varnish application make regarding classroom risk-stratification?
A. It is clinically inaccurate for most children
B. It carries an administrative burden and potential stigma
C. It has been proven to reduce overall programme costs
D. It is required by most public health regulations

Correct answer: B. Directly stated in paragraph 1. This is a straightforward locate-and-match question, typical of the easier end of Part C’s range.

Q2. What did the 2023 cohort study find when results were stratified by baseline caries risk?
A. Low-risk and high-risk children benefited equally
B. The benefit was concentrated mainly among high-risk children
C. Low-risk children benefited more than high-risk children
D. The study did not stratify by baseline risk

Correct answer: B. Paragraph 2 states the benefit was “concentrated almost entirely among high-risk children.” This question requires connecting information across two sentences within the same paragraph — slightly harder than Q1’s direct match.

Q3. Which of the following is NOT given as a reason universal-programme advocates support their approach?
A. Risk stratification has its own costs
B. Caries risk can change over time
C. Universal programmes are cheaper to run than any targeted alternative
D. Risk-assessment tools may underperform for some populations

Correct answer: C. This is an “except” question — a common Part C format that requires knowing what the text does NOT claim. Options A, B, and D are all explicitly given as the “threefold” counterargument in paragraph 3. Option C is never stated — the text discusses cost trade-offs, not a blanket claim that universal programmes are cheaper overall. This question type specifically catches candidates who skim for keywords rather than tracking what’s actually asserted.

Q4. What is the “hybrid model” described in paragraph 4?
A. Replacing varnish with an alternative preventive treatment for high-risk children
B. Universal baseline application plus extra intervention for high-risk children
C. Alternating between universal and targeted approaches each school term
D. Applying varnish only to children who opt in voluntarily

Correct answer: B. Directly described: “universal baseline application with supplementary intensive intervention layered on top for children identified as high-risk.”

Q5. According to the text, what is the current state of evidence on the hybrid model’s long-term cost-effectiveness?
A. It has been conclusively proven cost-effective
B. It has been proven not cost-effective
C. Long-term data is not yet available
D. No pilot studies have been conducted

Correct answer: C. Stated directly: “long-term cost-effectiveness data is not yet available.” Option D is contradicted by the text, which mentions “early pilot data from this hybrid model.”

Q6. What is the writer’s overall stance on the safety and clinical effectiveness of fluoride varnish as an intervention?
A. It is disputed by most public health dentists
B. It is not in serious dispute across all sides of the debate
C. It is effective only for high-risk children
D. It is being phased out in favour of newer treatments

Correct answer: B. The final paragraph states this explicitly: “What is not in serious dispute, across all sides of this debate, is that fluoride varnish itself is safe and effective.” This question tests whether the reader has understood that the entire debate in the text is about resource allocation, not about clinical safety — a common Part C trap is assuming a debate-structured text means the core intervention itself is in dispute.

Q7. Which best describes the overall structure of the text?
A. A single argument supported by escalating evidence
B. A chronological history of school dental programmes
C. A balanced presentation of opposing views followed by a proposed middle position
D. A case study of one specific school’s dental programme

Correct answer: C. This is a whole-text structure question, requiring you to step back from individual facts and characterise the passage as a whole — proponents’ view, critics’ view, proponents’ counterargument, then a hybrid middle position.

Q8. Based on the text, which group is most likely to be underserved by a strictly risk-targeted (non-universal) programme, according to critics of targeting?
A. Children who are already high-risk
B. Children from socioeconomic or ethnic backgrounds where risk-assessment tools underperform
C. Children who attend private dental practices
D. Children who receive varnish twice yearly

Correct answer: B. Drawn from paragraph 3’s equity argument: “risk assessment tools have historically underperformed for children from some socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.” This requires synthesising the equity argument rather than locating a single explicit sentence — a typical harder Part C inference question.

Common mistakes on Part B and Part C specifically

1. Applying Part A scanning speed to Part C. Part C texts require tracking an argument across paragraphs — reading too fast to save time often means missing which viewpoint a given sentence belongs to, leading to answers that are factually present in the text but attributed to the wrong side of the debate.
2. Getting caught by “except” or “NOT” questions. These require confirming that three options ARE stated before concluding the fourth is the answer — many candidates instead look for any plausible-sounding wrong answer instead of verifying all three true statements first.
3. Assuming Part B distractors are randomly wrong. As shown in the sample set above, Part B wrong answers are very often the specific things the text explicitly warns against — read the full sentence around a keyword match, not just the keyword itself.

Frequently asked questions

How many texts and questions are in OET Reading Part B and Part C?

Part B has 6 short texts with 3 three-option questions each (18 questions total). Part C has 2 longer texts with 8 four-option questions each (16 questions total).

How much time should I spend per question in Part B versus Part C?

Part B is designed for roughly 1 minute per question — it rewards fast, targeted scanning. Part C needs more time per question since it tests comprehension of an argument, not just fact location — most candidates should budget noticeably longer per question in Part C than Part B.

Are Part B and Part C texts profession-specific?

Yes — like OET Writing and Speaking, Reading texts are drawn from healthcare contexts relevant to your profession where applicable, though Part C texts in particular often cover general healthcare debates (like the fluoride varnish example above) that any profession could encounter.

What’s the best way to practise for the “except/NOT” question format specifically?

Practise explicitly verifying each of the three “true” options against the text before selecting the fourth as your answer, rather than pattern-matching for an obviously wrong-sounding statement — this question type is specifically designed to catch candidates who skip that verification step.

ELP’s OET Reading coaching includes full-length Part B and Part C practice sets with answer-by-answer explanations like the ones above, not just an answer key. Book a free OET reading assessment on WhatsApp: 0300-6107060