Causative Verbs (make, let, have) in Technical English
5 exercises — practise make/let/have + bare infinitive vs the passive causative.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses the causative "make" to describe forcing a required action?
"The linter makes developers fix all warnings before committing" is correct: the causative pattern "make + object + bare infinitive" expresses that someone is forced or required to perform an action, and the verb after the object must be in its base form without "to". Option A incorrectly inserts "to" before "fix", which is not allowed in the active causative "make" pattern (unlike verbs such as "force" or "require", which do take "to"). Option C wrongly uses the -ing form "fixing", which is not the pattern "make" takes. Option D inserts an unnecessary "that"-clause structure, which doesn't fit the causative construction.
2 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses the causative "let" to describe granting permission for an action?
"...lets contractors access the staging environment" is correct: "let" takes the same causative pattern as "make" — object followed by the bare infinitive without "to" — to express permission being granted. Option A incorrectly adds "to" before "access", which is ungrammatical after "let". Option B wrongly uses the gerund "accessing" instead of the required bare infinitive. Option D inserts an unnecessary "that"-clause, which does not fit this causative structure.
3 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses the causative "have" (arranging for someone to do something) with the ACTIVE causative pattern, not the passive causative?
"We had the on-call engineer restart the affected service" is correct: the active causative "have + person + bare infinitive" describes arranging for a specific person to carry out an action themselves, unlike the passive causative "have + object + past participle" (e.g., "have the service restarted"), which focuses on the action being done to a thing regardless of who does it. Option A incorrectly adds "to" before "restart". Option C mistakenly uses the past participle "restarted", which would only be correct in the passive causative pattern with a different object ("have the service restarted"), not with a person as the direct causee here. Option D wrongly uses the -ing form, which isn't part of this active causative construction.
4 / 5
Which sentence correctly contrasts the active causative with "have" and the passive causative "have something done" in the same context?
"Had the DBA optimize the slow query...had the index rebuilt overnight" is correct: the first clause uses the active causative ("have + person + bare infinitive") because a specific person, the DBA, performs the action, while the second clause correctly switches to the passive causative ("have + thing + past participle") because the focus shifts to the index being acted upon, with the performer left unspecified. Option B wrongly adds "to" in the first clause and uses the bare form "rebuild" instead of the past participle "rebuilt" in the second. Option C incorrectly uses the past participle "optimized" with a person as causee in the first clause, which is not the correct pattern when a specific agent performs the action. Option D wrongly uses the -ing form "rebuilding" in the passive causative slot, where a past participle is required.
5 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses a negative causative with "won't let" to describe a system restriction?
"...won't let unauthorized requests reach the internal API" is correct: the negative causative keeps the same object + bare infinitive pattern as the affirmative form, with "won't" negating the main verb "let" while "reach" stays in its base form. Option A incorrectly adds "to" before "reach". Option C wrongly uses the -ing form "reaching" instead of the bare infinitive. Option D mismatches the auxiliary "doesn't" (present simple negative) with the past participle "reached", which is not the correct verb form after the causative "let" in either tense.