Causative Verbs (make, let, have) in Technical English
5 exercises — practise make/let/have + bare infinitive vs the passive causative.
0 / 25 completed
1 / 25
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 / 25
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 / 25
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 / 25
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 / 25
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.
6 / 25
Alex: "The build is failing because the tests aren't running! Can you make them run?"
'Make' here is used causatively to request that someone *initiate* the tests. It's asking for action to be taken. The other options misinterpret 'make' as creating a new thing or simply stating the test status. This emphasizes the proactive element of the command.
7 / 25
"Ben: I've arranged for Maria to fix the database connection issue. I have her working on it."
This example demonstrates the active causative pattern of 'have' + object. It correctly shows Ben arranging for Maria to take action. The mistake is using the passive causative ('have something done'), which describes receiving a service rather than initiating it.
8 / 25
"Chloe: The API returned an error: 'Insufficient permissions.' We need to have the data processed by the admin team."
'Have' is correctly used here to arrange for the admin team's involvement. This exemplifies the active causative construction – arranging for someone else to perform an action. Note that using 'have something done' describes receiving a service rather than initiating one.
9 / 25
"David: The system won't let me deploy the new version. It's throwing an access denied error."
'Won't let' accurately depicts a restriction enforced by the system, utilizing the negative causative form of 'let'. This demonstrates how 'let' can signify refusal or prohibition when used causatively. It's crucial to distinguish this from a simple refusal.
10 / 25
Alex: "The build is failing because the tests aren't running! Can you make them run?"
'Make' here is used causatively to request that someone *initiate* the tests. It's asking for action to be taken. The other options misinterpret 'make' as creating a new thing or simply stating the test status. This emphasizes the proactive element of the command.
11 / 25
"Ben: I've arranged for Maria to fix the database connection issue. I have her working on it."
This example demonstrates the active causative pattern of 'have' + object. It correctly shows Ben arranging for Maria to take action. The mistake is using the passive causative ('have something done'), which describes receiving a service rather than initiating it.
12 / 25
"Chloe: The API returned an error: 'Insufficient permissions.' We need to have the data processed by the admin team."
'Have' is correctly used here to arrange for the admin team's involvement. This exemplifies the active causative construction – arranging for someone else to perform an action. Note that using 'have something done' describes receiving a service rather than initiating one.
13 / 25
"David: The system won't let me deploy the new version. It's throwing an access denied error."
'Won't let' accurately depicts a restriction enforced by the system, utilizing the negative causative form of 'let'. This demonstrates how 'let' can signify refusal or prohibition when used causatively. It's crucial to distinguish this from a simple refusal.
14 / 25
Alex: "The build is failing because the tests aren't running! Can you make them run?"
'Make' here is used causatively to request that someone *initiate* the tests. It's asking for action to be taken. The other options misinterpret 'make' as creating a new thing or simply stating the test status. This emphasizes the proactive element of the command.
15 / 25
"Ben: I've arranged for Maria to fix the database connection issue. I have her working on it."
This example demonstrates the active causative pattern of 'have' + object. It correctly shows Ben arranging for Maria to take action. The mistake is using the passive causative ('have something done'), which describes receiving a service rather than initiating it.
16 / 25
"Chloe: The API returned an error: 'Insufficient permissions.' We need to have the data processed by the admin team."
'Have' is correctly used here to arrange for the admin team's involvement. This exemplifies the active causative construction – arranging for someone else to perform an action. Note that using 'have something done' describes receiving a service rather than initiating one.
17 / 25
"David: The system won't let me deploy the new version. It's throwing an access denied error."
'Won't let' accurately depicts a restriction enforced by the system, utilizing the negative causative form of 'let'. This demonstrates how 'let' can signify refusal or prohibition when used causatively. It's crucial to distinguish this from a simple refusal.
18 / 25
A developer is writing a script to automatically deploy updates. They need to ensure that the deployment process is controlled and audited. Which of the following best describes how they should use a causative verb?
Using `have` indicates that the developer is *causing* the monitoring and logging to occur. This demonstrates control and accountability, which are essential in IT deployments. Options A and B represent uncontrolled automation, while option C describes a passive process without active management.
19 / 25
A system administrator is troubleshooting an issue where applications are intermittently failing. They suspect that the database server is overloaded. Which causative verb would be most appropriate to use when describing their action?
Using `have` here signifies that the administrator is actively *causing* the monitoring and optimization of the database. This demonstrates proactive management to address the underlying issue. Options A and B are problematic as they imply automated solutions without control, while option D represents a completely different approach.
20 / 25
Liam: 'The build server won't let me commit my changes. It keeps throwing a 'permission denied' error.' Which causative verb best describes the situation?
'Let' accurately describes a situation where something prevents an action. The server 'lets' Liam perform the commit. Options 'make', 'have', and 'insufficient' are related to other aspects of the problem (initiating a build or managing permissions) rather than the server's obstruction.
21 / 25
David: 'I'm going to let the automated testing system handle the regression tests. It will ensure all changes pass before deployment.' Which causative verb is David using correctly?
'Let' signifies that David is giving permission or allowing a process to occur without direct intervention. This aligns with the scenario where the automated testing system handles the regression tests independently. Using 'make' would imply David is actively controlling the execution.
22 / 25
DevOps Engineer (Sarah): 'The build pipeline is failing because Jenkins isn't letting us run the tests. It's reporting a timeout error.'
Which causative verb does Sarah correctly use to describe this situation?
'Let''s' in this context means that Jenkins is preventing the test execution. This signifies an action taken *on* Jenkins, not a deficiency. Option A describes a lack of functionality; options B and D misinterpret the meaning of 'let'.
23 / 25
Developer (Raj): 'I've made the code more robust by having it validate user input before processing. This prevents potential errors and improves security.'
Which causative verb best reflects Raj's actions in this PR description?
'Have' here signifies that Raj *caused* or *introduced* the validation process. This demonstrates an active step taken to improve the security of the code. Options A and B focus on a deficiency; option D contradicts Raj's statement.
24 / 25
API Response (from a microservice): 'Error: The system won't allow you to access this resource without proper authorization. Please authenticate.'
Which causative verb is implicitly used in this API response?
The API response states that the 'system won't let' you access the resource. This clearly demonstrates a causative action – the system *prevented* access due to a lack of authorization. Options A and D represent deficiencies; option C is a suggestion for configuration change.
25 / 25
John: 'The deployment process is failing. It seems the infrastructure team hasn't made the necessary changes to the load balancer! Can you make them do it?'
John is using 'make' causatively here, meaning he's *causing* or *inducing* the infrastructure team to take a specific action. The incorrect options misinterpret 'make' as directly fixing something or merely reporting an issue; it's about influencing another party's behavior. This is a common scenario when coordinating tasks across teams.
What will I practise in "Causative Verbs (make, let, have) in Technical English — IT Grammar Exercise"?
Practise the active causative pattern (make/let/have + object + bare infinitive) versus the passive causative (have + object + past participle) when describing
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.