Sample answers · Reading MCMA
PTE Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers · Reading section
PTE Reading MCMA sample – Band 79 selections.
A worked Reading MCMA item: the 309-word academic passage, all 7 options analysed one-by-one against the text, the Band 79 selection strategy that manages negative marking, and the full scoring math. Reading MCMA has negative marking – it is one of only 3 PTE tasks that penalises wrong picks.
Last verified 16 July 2026 · Written for PTE Academic post-August 2025 format · Verified against Pearson's July 2025 Score Guide.
The passage
309 words · inside Pearson's ≤350 word limit for Reading MCMA · authored to match real-exam density and register.
Seagrass meadows are among the most productive and ecologically valuable habitats in coastal ecosystems, yet they remain far less recognised in public policy than the coral reefs and mangrove forests that share their environments. A single hectare of healthy seagrass can support tens of thousands of fish, crustaceans and molluscs, functioning as a nursery for many species that later migrate to open water. Perhaps more importantly, seagrasses trap and store carbon in the seafloor sediments beneath them at rates that, per unit area, exceed those of most terrestrial forests. Recent estimates place the total carbon locked in the world's seagrass meadows at approximately twenty billion tonnes. Despite this ecological importance, seagrass meadows have declined by roughly thirty percent globally since the late nineteenth century, and the pace of loss has accelerated in the past four decades. The three most consistently cited drivers are coastal nutrient pollution from agricultural runoff, direct physical damage from dredging and boat anchors, and reduced water clarity caused by suspended sediment from upstream deforestation and construction. Climate change contributes an additional pressure, primarily through warming events that trigger die-offs in tropical and subtropical meadows. Restoration is technically feasible but expensive and slow. Successful projects in the Chesapeake Bay in the United States and in Cockburn Sound in Western Australia have demonstrated that transplanted seedlings can re-establish meadows within a decade if underlying water quality is first restored. However, cost per hectare remains high relative to comparable marine restoration such as oyster reefs, and success rates fall sharply where nutrient pollution is not simultaneously addressed. Policy attention to seagrass has grown following the inclusion of seagrass meadows in national blue-carbon accounting frameworks. Australia became the first country to formally include seagrass in its greenhouse gas inventory in 2022, and several European Union member states have signalled they will follow before the end of the current decade.
The question
The number of correct options is NOT stated on the real exam. Between 2 and 4 of the 7 options below are correct.
Per-option analysis
Each option evaluated against the passage.
Coastal nutrient pollution from agricultural runoff.
Evidence: Directly stated: paragraph 2 lists this as one of "the three most consistently cited drivers" of decline.
Overfishing of species that depend on seagrass meadows as nursery habitat.
Evidence: Not stated. The passage mentions that seagrasses function as a nursery for fish, but it never lists overfishing as a driver of seagrass decline. This is a distractor built from a related but different concept.
Direct physical damage from dredging and boat anchors.
Evidence: Directly stated: paragraph 2, second of the three drivers.
Warming events that cause die-offs in tropical and subtropical meadows.
Evidence: Directly stated: paragraph 2 says climate change contributes "primarily through warming events that trigger die-offs in tropical and subtropical meadows".
The high per-hectare cost of restoration compared to oyster reef projects.
Evidence: Mentioned in the passage (paragraph 3) but as a constraint on RESTORATION, not a driver of decline. Reading MCMA distractors often re-use passage phrases in the wrong context. Read carefully.
Reduced water clarity caused by suspended sediment from upstream deforestation and construction.
Evidence: Directly stated: paragraph 2, third of the three drivers.
The failure of national blue-carbon accounting frameworks to include seagrass ecosystems.
Evidence: The opposite is stated. Paragraph 4 notes that Australia became the first country to formally include seagrass in its blue-carbon inventory in 2022, and other countries plan to follow. This distractor inverts the passage's claim.
Band 79 answer
The 4 selections that earn full marks.
4 correct picks, 0 incorrect. Raw score: +4 - 0 = 4/4 – full marks.
Scoring math (why over-picking is expensive)
Same question, 5 different picking strategies.
| Strategy | Picks | Raw math | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Band 79 pick (A, C, D, F) | 4 correct, 0 incorrect | +4 correct - 0 incorrect | 4/4 – full marks |
| Over-picker (A, B, C, D, F) | 4 correct, 1 incorrect (B) | +4 - 1 = 3 | 3/4 – one wrong pick costs a full mark |
| Aggressive picker (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) | 4 correct, 3 incorrect | +4 - 3 = 1 | 1/4 – picking every option destroys the score |
| Under-picker (A, C) | 2 correct, 0 incorrect | +2 - 0 = 2 | 2/4 – safer than over-picking but leaves 2 marks on the table |
| Guesser (B, E, G – all wrong) | 0 correct, 3 incorrect | +0 - 3 = -3 → floored to 0 | 0/4 – minimum score is 0, can't go negative |
The rule: +1 for each correct selection, -1 for each incorrect selection, minimum score per item is 0 (you cannot go negative on a single item, but low scores add up across all your Reading items).
The Band 79 selection strategy
5 steps to manage the negative-marking risk.
Read the passage first, then the question
Do not read options before the passage – options are designed to prime you toward specific text and away from the whole. Read the passage twice at natural pace before glancing at the answers.
Underline every option's key claim on your first pass
For each option, note the specific claim it makes ("nutrient pollution", "overfishing", "warming events") – you are looking for exact evidence in the passage, not thematic connections.
For each option, hunt for the exact evidence
SELECT only if the passage directly states the claim. Not if the passage IMPLIES it. Not if the passage discusses a related concept. Reading MCMA rewards precision, not inference.
When in doubt, do NOT select
Negative marking makes over-picking expensive. If an option's evidence is thin or the passage says something similar-but-different, leave it. Under-picking caps your score at the number of correct options you picked; over-picking can zero the item.
Aim for 2 to 3 minutes per item
Reading is 22 to 30 minutes for roughly 15 to 20 items total. MCMA takes longer than the fill-in-the-blanks types because of the negative-marking risk analysis. Do not exceed 3 minutes.
5 common Reading MCMA mistakes
The failure modes that drag a Band 79 to a Band 60.
| Mistake | What it costs you |
|---|---|
| Picking every plausible-sounding option | Guarantees negative marks on the ones that turn out wrong. A 4-correct question can score 0 if you pick all 7 options and only 4 happen to be correct. |
| Picking based on 'this sounds right' rather than 'the passage says this' | Reading MCMA is testing your comprehension of the passage, not your general knowledge. Options are frequently written to be true statements about the real world but NOT supported by the passage – those score -1. |
| Missing that an option inverts the passage's claim | Common distractor: the passage says X, the option says NOT X. Reading fast misses the negation. Read every option verb carefully. |
| Confusing 'driver of decline' with 'constraint on restoration' | Passages often discuss multiple aspects (causes, effects, solutions, constraints). Distractors re-use passage wording in the wrong category. Re-read the question stem before finalising. |
| Selecting only one option when 'multiple' is in the task name | There is always more than one correct answer in Reading MCMA – typically 2 to 4. Selecting only one is safe from negative marking but guarantees you leave marks on the table. |
FAQ
Reading MCMA, answered.
How is Reading Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers scored?
Partial credit with negative marking, per Pearson's July 2025 Score Guide. Every correct option selected scores +1, every incorrect option selected scores -1, and the item's minimum score is floored at 0 (you cannot go negative on the item). Not selecting an option scores 0 – neither penalty nor reward.
How many correct options are there per Reading MCMA question?
Between 2 and 4 correct options in a set of 5 to 7 total options. Pearson does not tell you how many are correct – that would defeat the purpose of the negative-marking design. Your job is to select only those you can directly evidence from the passage.
How many Reading MCMA items are on the PTE Academic test?
2 to 3 items per test per Pearson's July 2025 Score Guide. It sits in Part 2 (Reading) alongside Reorder Paragraphs, both types of Fill in the Blanks, and Multiple Choice Single Answer.
What is the passage length for Reading MCMA?
Up to 350 words per Pearson's Score Guide. Most passages fall in the 250 to 330 word range. This is one of the longest Reading passages you will encounter – the other Reading types use shorter passages (Reorder is 150 words, both Fill in the Blanks types are 80 to 300 words, and MCSA is up to 300 words).
Which PTE tasks have negative marking?
Only three: Reading Multiple Choice Multiple Answers, Listening Multiple Choice Multiple Answers, and Highlight Incorrect Words. All three use the same rule – +1 correct, -1 incorrect, minimum score 0. All other PTE tasks either use partial credit without negative marking or binary correct/incorrect scoring.
Should I always pick at least one option in Reading MCMA?
Yes. Not selecting any option guarantees 0 on the item. As long as you can evidence one option confidently from the passage, pick it – that locks in +1 with no downside risk. Only escalate to picking a second option if you can evidence that one too.
Keep going with Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers (Reading)
One pattern, three depths.
You've just read the band 79 worked example. Here's the rest of the loop for this task.
Further reading
Related tools.
- → Reorder Paragraphs template – the sibling Reading task with the 3-anchor method.
- → Listening MCMA sample – same task shape, audio stimulus instead of text.
- → Reading section overview – all 5 reading task types.
- → Take a free scored mock – real Reading MCMA items with AI scoring.