Advanced
Grammar
#attribution
#citation
#technical-writing
Attribution and Citation Language in Technical Writing
5 exercises — correctly attributing claims and recommendations to external sources and internal documentation.
Key patterns:
- according to — never "according with/by", always followed by "to"
- as stated in — "in" for written documents, not "on/at"
- note/state/report that... — reporting verbs take a bare that-clause, no extra preposition
- per / as per — standalone formal prepositions, never "per to"
0 / 25 completed
1 / 25
A design document needs to attribute a recommendation to an external source. Which sentence uses correct attribution language?
"According to" is the fixed prepositional phrase used to attribute a claim, recommendation, or fact to a source. The preposition to is obligatory here and cannot be replaced with with, by, or omitted entirely — these are common errors for learners whose first language uses a different preposition after the equivalent phrase. This structure is standard in technical documentation when citing frameworks, standards, or vendor documentation.
2 / 25
A postmortem needs to reference internal documentation. Which sentence correctly uses "as stated in"?
"As stated in" is the correct fixed phrase for attributing a rule or fact to a written document, using the preposition in because the information is located "inside" the text of the document. "On" and "at" are incorrect prepositions in this collocation, and option C is missing the required preposition entirely after "stated," making it ungrammatical.
3 / 25
A technical blog post cites a source using reporting language. Which sentence correctly integrates a citation with appropriate reporting verb and structure?
Reporting verbs like note, state, observe, and report are typically followed directly by a that-clause (optionally omitting "that" in informal writing) without an additional preposition.
"Note that + clause" is the standard structure; inserting about or for before the clause, as in options C and D, is a common preposition error, and option B introduces an unnecessary and confusing trailing phrase.4 / 25
Which sentence correctly uses "per" as a formal attribution preposition in a compliance document?
"Per" functions as a standalone formal preposition meaning "in accordance with" and should not be followed by another preposition like to or of. The related phrase "as per" is also standalone and equally should not be followed by "to" (option C is a redundant double-preposition error). "Per the policy" and "as per the policy" are both correct; "per to" and "as per to" are not.
5 / 25
A security advisory needs to attribute a finding to a research team while hedging appropriately. Which sentence best combines attribution and hedged reporting?
"According to [named source], [hedged claim]" is the professional pattern for attributing a finding while preserving appropriate epistemic caution — combining a precise attribution phrase with a modal hedge (may) and a scope-limiting clause (under specific conditions). Option A undermines its own hedge by asserting "definitely true" right after "claim." Option D is vague and unprofessional, failing to name a specific, credible source, which is essential in security advisories.
6 / 25
Mark reported a potential vulnerability in the authentication service. He stated: 'The team's analysis showed that using the default session timeout was insufficient to protect against brute force attacks.' Which of the following revisions best presents
Mark's findings while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation?This question tests understanding of how to properly attribute technical recommendations. Option 1 correctly uses 'as stated by' to directly link Mark's report with the recommendation. The other options either misrepresent the source or simply state a fact without acknowledging it originated from Mark's findings. Using 'as stated by' clearly demonstrates that the team's analysis, and therefore the recommendation, is being attributed to Mark's contribution.
7 / 25
Sarah reported a significant performance bottleneck in the database query for the user profile API. She wrote in her PR description: 'Our investigation revealed that using the current indexing strategy was causing excessive full table scans.' Which of the following options best reflects Sarah's statement while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation to the team's research?
This question tests understanding of reporting findings with attribution. Option 2 correctly frames
Sarah's statement as a *finding* supported by the team's investigation. It clearly links her observation (full table scans) to the resulting recommendation, avoiding simply repeating what she said. Options A and B misrepresent the relationship between Sarah's finding and the team's conclusion; option D focuses solely on Sarah's observation without acknowledging the broader context of the team's research.8 / 25
Mark, a junior developer, flagged an issue in the new payment processing microservice. He posted this comment to Slack: 'The team's research indicates that using JWTs for authentication is a best practice.' A senior architect, David, replies: 'That's good to hear, Mark!'. Which of the following responses from David *most effectively* incorporates Mark's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?The key here is to demonstrate that David acknowledges and builds upon Mark's specific contribution. Option 2 is best because it directly references the 'team's recommendations,' providing context for Mark's observation and showing how his feedback aligns with established practices. Options A and B are too generic, while option D shifts the focus away from Mark's initial finding and towards a broader meeting discussion – this isn't the most effective way to integrate attribution into Slack communication. Using 'team's recommendations' avoids simply saying 'that's good' and reinforces that Mark's insight was part of a larger effort.
9 / 25
git checkout -b fix-authentication
The key here is to acknowledge the feedback and demonstrate a desire for more information. Option 3 best achieves this by requesting the source of the recommendation – 'the research' – which shows engagement and allows for verification. Options A and B are too dismissive or simply agree without seeking clarification. Option B's phrasing also implies Anya doesn't understand Liam's feedback.
10 / 25
Alex reported a memory leak in the image processing pipeline. He wrote in his Jira ticket: 'The team's findings indicate that the inefficient use of std::vector is contributing to the issue.' A senior engineer, Ben, responded: 'Thanks for reporting this, Alex. That's definitely something we need to investigate further.' Which response from Ben best incorporates Alex's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?
Option 2 is the best response because it acknowledges Alex's contribution directly and provides a minimal level of engagement without over-committing or implying immediate action. The other options either demand excessive detail (option 1), offer vague acknowledgement (option 3), or focuses on task management rather than incorporating the specific technical finding attributed to 'the team.' It's important to note that simply acknowledging a report isn't sufficient; it needs to be connected back to the attribution of the root cause, as Alex has done.
11 / 25
Mark reported a potential vulnerability in the authentication service. He stated: 'The team's analysis showed that using the default session timeout was insufficient to protect against brute force attacks.' Which of the following revisions best presents
Mark's findings while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation?This question tests understanding of how to properly attribute technical recommendations. Option 1 correctly uses 'as stated by' to directly link Mark's report with the recommendation. The other options either misrepresent the source or simply state a fact without acknowledging it originated from Mark's findings. Using 'as stated by' clearly demonstrates that the team's analysis, and therefore the recommendation, is being attributed to Mark's contribution.
12 / 25
Sarah reported a significant performance bottleneck in the database query for the user profile API. She wrote in her PR description: 'Our investigation revealed that using the current indexing strategy was causing excessive full table scans.' Which of the following options best reflects Sarah's statement while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation to the team's research?
This question tests understanding of reporting findings with attribution. Option 2 correctly frames
Sarah's statement as a *finding* supported by the team's investigation. It clearly links her observation (full table scans) to the resulting recommendation, avoiding simply repeating what she said. Options A and B misrepresent the relationship between Sarah's finding and the team's conclusion; option D focuses solely on Sarah's observation without acknowledging the broader context of the team's research.13 / 25
Mark, a junior developer, flagged an issue in the new payment processing microservice. He posted this comment to Slack: 'The team's research indicates that using JWTs for authentication is a best practice.' A senior architect, David, replies: 'That's good to hear, Mark!'. Which of the following responses from David *most effectively* incorporates Mark's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?The key here is to demonstrate that David acknowledges and builds upon Mark's specific contribution. Option 2 is best because it directly references the 'team's recommendations,' providing context for Mark's observation and showing how his feedback aligns with established practices. Options A and B are too generic, while option D shifts the focus away from Mark's initial finding and towards a broader meeting discussion – this isn't the most effective way to integrate attribution into Slack communication. Using 'team's recommendations' avoids simply saying 'that's good' and reinforces that Mark's insight was part of a larger effort.
14 / 25
git checkout -b fix-authentication
The key here is to acknowledge the feedback and demonstrate a desire for more information. Option 3 best achieves this by requesting the source of the recommendation – 'the research' – which shows engagement and allows for verification. Options A and B are too dismissive or simply agree without seeking clarification. Option B's phrasing also implies Anya doesn't understand Liam's feedback.
15 / 25
Alex reported a memory leak in the image processing pipeline. He wrote in his Jira ticket: 'The team's findings indicate that the inefficient use of std::vector is contributing to the issue.' A senior engineer, Ben, responded: 'Thanks for reporting this, Alex. That's definitely something we need to investigate further.' Which response from Ben best incorporates Alex's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?
Option 2 is the best response because it acknowledges Alex's contribution directly and provides a minimal level of engagement without over-committing or implying immediate action. The other options either demand excessive detail (option 1), offer vague acknowledgement (option 3), or focuses on task management rather than incorporating the specific technical finding attributed to 'the team.' It's important to note that simply acknowledging a report isn't sufficient; it needs to be connected back to the attribution of the root cause, as Alex has done.
16 / 25
Mark reported a potential vulnerability in the authentication service. He stated: 'The team's analysis showed that using the default session timeout was insufficient to protect against brute force attacks.' Which of the following revisions best presents
Mark's findings while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation?This question tests understanding of how to properly attribute technical recommendations. Option 1 correctly uses 'as stated by' to directly link Mark's report with the recommendation. The other options either misrepresent the source or simply state a fact without acknowledging it originated from Mark's findings. Using 'as stated by' clearly demonstrates that the team's analysis, and therefore the recommendation, is being attributed to Mark's contribution.
17 / 25
Sarah reported a significant performance bottleneck in the database query for the user profile API. She wrote in her PR description: 'Our investigation revealed that using the current indexing strategy was causing excessive full table scans.' Which of the following options best reflects Sarah's statement while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation to the team's research?
This question tests understanding of reporting findings with attribution. Option 2 correctly frames
Sarah's statement as a *finding* supported by the team's investigation. It clearly links her observation (full table scans) to the resulting recommendation, avoiding simply repeating what she said. Options A and B misrepresent the relationship between Sarah's finding and the team's conclusion; option D focuses solely on Sarah's observation without acknowledging the broader context of the team's research.18 / 25
Mark, a junior developer, flagged an issue in the new payment processing microservice. He posted this comment to Slack: 'The team's research indicates that using JWTs for authentication is a best practice.' A senior architect, David, replies: 'That's good to hear, Mark!'. Which of the following responses from David *most effectively* incorporates Mark's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?The key here is to demonstrate that David acknowledges and builds upon Mark's specific contribution. Option 2 is best because it directly references the 'team's recommendations,' providing context for Mark's observation and showing how his feedback aligns with established practices. Options A and B are too generic, while option D shifts the focus away from Mark's initial finding and towards a broader meeting discussion – this isn't the most effective way to integrate attribution into Slack communication. Using 'team's recommendations' avoids simply saying 'that's good' and reinforces that Mark's insight was part of a larger effort.
19 / 25
git checkout -b fix-authentication
The key here is to acknowledge the feedback and demonstrate a desire for more information. Option 3 best achieves this by requesting the source of the recommendation – 'the research' – which shows engagement and allows for verification. Options A and B are too dismissive or simply agree without seeking clarification. Option B's phrasing also implies Anya doesn't understand Liam's feedback.
20 / 25
Alex reported a memory leak in the image processing pipeline. He wrote in his Jira ticket: 'The team's findings indicate that the inefficient use of std::vector is contributing to the issue.' A senior engineer, Ben, responded: 'Thanks for reporting this, Alex. That's definitely something we need to investigate further.' Which response from Ben best incorporates Alex's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?
Option 2 is the best response because it acknowledges Alex's contribution directly and provides a minimal level of engagement without over-committing or implying immediate action. The other options either demand excessive detail (option 1), offer vague acknowledgement (option 3), or focuses on task management rather than incorporating the specific technical finding attributed to 'the team.' It's important to note that simply acknowledging a report isn't sufficient; it needs to be connected back to the attribution of the root cause, as Alex has done.
21 / 25
Mark reported a potential vulnerability in the authentication service. He stated: 'The team's analysis showed that using the default session timeout was insufficient to protect against brute force attacks.' Which of the following revisions best presents
Mark's findings while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation?This question tests understanding of how to properly attribute technical recommendations. Option 1 correctly uses 'as stated by' to directly link Mark's report with the recommendation. The other options either misrepresent the source or simply state a fact without acknowledging it originated from Mark's findings. Using 'as stated by' clearly demonstrates that the team's analysis, and therefore the recommendation, is being attributed to Mark's contribution.
22 / 25
Sarah reported a significant performance bottleneck in the database query for the user profile API. She wrote in her PR description: 'Our investigation revealed that using the current indexing strategy was causing excessive full table scans.' Which of the following options best reflects Sarah's statement while accurately attributing the underlying technical recommendation to the team's research?
This question tests understanding of reporting findings with attribution. Option 2 correctly frames
Sarah's statement as a *finding* supported by the team's investigation. It clearly links her observation (full table scans) to the resulting recommendation, avoiding simply repeating what she said. Options A and B misrepresent the relationship between Sarah's finding and the team's conclusion; option D focuses solely on Sarah's observation without acknowledging the broader context of the team's research.23 / 25
Mark, a junior developer, flagged an issue in the new payment processing microservice. He posted this comment to Slack: 'The team's research indicates that using JWTs for authentication is a best practice.' A senior architect, David, replies: 'That's good to hear, Mark!'. Which of the following responses from David *most effectively* incorporates Mark's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?The key here is to demonstrate that David acknowledges and builds upon Mark's specific contribution. Option 2 is best because it directly references the 'team's recommendations,' providing context for Mark's observation and showing how his feedback aligns with established practices. Options A and B are too generic, while option D shifts the focus away from Mark's initial finding and towards a broader meeting discussion – this isn't the most effective way to integrate attribution into Slack communication. Using 'team's recommendations' avoids simply saying 'that's good' and reinforces that Mark's insight was part of a larger effort.
24 / 25
git checkout -b fix-authentication
The key here is to acknowledge the feedback and demonstrate a desire for more information. Option 3 best achieves this by requesting the source of the recommendation – 'the research' – which shows engagement and allows for verification. Options A and B are too dismissive or simply agree without seeking clarification. Option B's phrasing also implies Anya doesn't understand Liam's feedback.
25 / 25
Alex reported a memory leak in the image processing pipeline. He wrote in his Jira ticket: 'The team's findings indicate that the inefficient use of std::vector is contributing to the issue.' A senior engineer, Ben, responded: 'Thanks for reporting this, Alex. That's definitely something we need to investigate further.' Which response from Ben best incorporates Alex's feedback while maintaining professional attribution and clarity?
Option 2 is the best response because it acknowledges Alex's contribution directly and provides a minimal level of engagement without over-committing or implying immediate action. The other options either demand excessive detail (option 1), offer vague acknowledgement (option 3), or focuses on task management rather than incorporating the specific technical finding attributed to 'the team.' It's important to note that simply acknowledging a report isn't sufficient; it needs to be connected back to the attribution of the root cause, as Alex has done.
Frequently Asked Questions
What will I practise in "Attribution and Citation Language in Technical Writing — IT English Grammar Exercise"?
Practice attribution phrases for design documents, postmortems, and security advisories: according to, as stated in, per the policy, reporting verbs with
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 25 multiple-choice exercises, each with instant feedback and a full explanation of the correct answer.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account, sign-up, or paywall.
Do I need to create an account to do these exercises?
No account is required. Just click an option to answer — your score for this session is tracked automatically in the progress bar above.
What happens if I choose the wrong answer?
You'll immediately see which answer was correct, plus a full explanation covering the grammar rule and reasoning behind it — mistakes are where most of the learning happens.
Can I retry the exercises if I want a higher score?
Yes — use the "Try again" button on the results screen to reset and go through all the questions again.
Is my progress saved if I close the page?
No. Progress is tracked only for your current visit; reloading or leaving the page resets the counter. This keeps the exercise simple and account-free.
Where can I find more Grammar exercises?
Browse the full Grammar hub for related drills, or check the "Next up" link below to continue with a connected topic.
How is this different from reading an article on the same topic?
Articles explain grammar rules in prose; this exercise tests and reinforces those rules through active recall with immediate feedback — the two work best together.
Who writes these exercises?
Every exercise is written by the CoderSlingo team, drawing on real workplace English used in IT roles, then reviewed for accuracy and clarity.