A postmortem states: "The service outage _____ a misconfigured load balancer health check." Which causative verb correctly expresses direct causation?
Resulted from is correct. "X resulted from Y" means Y was the direct cause of X. This is the standard bidirectional causative: "The outage resulted from a misconfigured health check" = "The misconfigured health check resulted in an outage". In postmortems, "resulted from" identifies the root cause. Triggered would also work but suggests a more immediate/event-based causation. Contributed to implies partial causation. Was exacerbated by means was made worse — implies the outage existed before the health check issue.
2 / 28
An incident report reads: "The memory leak _____ a cascade of service restarts across the cluster." Which causative verb expresses that one event caused a chain reaction?
Triggered is correct. "Triggered" expresses that an initial event set off a chain reaction — it is the standard word in incident reports for cascade failures. "The memory leak triggered a cascade" implies the leak was the initiating event. Resulted from reverses the causation. Was caused by would require restructuring ("The cascade was caused by the memory leak"). Contributed to implies only partial causation — a cascade trigger is usually direct, not partial.
3 / 28
A postmortem analysis states: "The slow DNS resolution _____ the initial outage by delaying health checks." Which phrase correctly identifies a factor that made an existing problem worse?
Exacerbated is correct. "X exacerbated Y" means X made Y worse. "The slow DNS resolution exacerbated the initial outage" — the outage already existed, and DNS issues amplified it. Note the direction: the subject (DNS resolution) is the aggravating factor, and the object (the outage) is what got worse. Was exacerbated by would reverse the subject/object relationship. Triggered implies it started the outage. Resulted in means caused as an outcome.
4 / 28
An incident timeline reads: "The disk filling up _____ the database process being killed by the OOM killer." Which causative correctly links the preceding event to its consequence?
Led to is correct. "X led to Y" is a sequential causative: X happened first and caused Y as a consequence. "The disk filling up led to the database process being killed" correctly establishes the temporal and causal sequence. Resulted from reverses the causation direction. Was exacerbated by means was made worse — the database being killed is the result, not something being worsened. Contributed to implies only partial causation.
5 / 28
A root cause analysis identifies: "Three factors _____ the extended recovery time: inadequate monitoring, no automated failover, and unclear runbooks." Which causative is correct for multiple contributing factors?
Contributed to is correct. When multiple factors each played a partial role in an outcome, "contributed to" is the accurate causative. It avoids overstating any single factor as the sole cause. "Three factors contributed to the extended recovery time" is the standard phrasing in blameless postmortems where systemic causes are identified. Triggered implies a single initiating event. Resulted in and led to imply a more direct, single-chain causation.
6 / 28
A deployment post-mortem states: "The failed deployment _____ a revenue loss of approximately £12,000 over three hours." Which causative correctly expresses the financial consequence?
Resulted in is correct. "X resulted in Y" means X was the cause and Y is the measurable outcome. "The failed deployment resulted in a revenue loss" expresses a direct causal link to a business consequence. This is the standard phrasing in executive incident summaries where financial impact is quantified. Was caused by reverses subject/object. Triggered is slightly more dramatic and is more common for technical cascade events than business consequences. Contributed to implies partial causation — if the deployment was the sole cause, "resulted in" is more accurate.
7 / 28
Which sentence uses a causative structure incorrectly?
Option C is incorrect. "Was resulted in" is not a valid passive construction. "Result in" is an intransitive phrasal verb and cannot be made passive. The correct constructions are either active ("The slow database response resulted in the API timeout") or a passive with "caused by" ("The API timeout was caused by a slow database response"). Options A, B, and D all use causative structures correctly.
8 / 28
A blameless postmortem states: "The incident _____ inadequate load testing before the release." Which causative correctly identifies the root cause using passive voice?
Was caused by is correct. The passive "was caused by" identifies the root cause without assigning individual blame — perfectly aligned with blameless postmortem culture. The agent (inadequate load testing) is a systemic factor, not a person. "The incident was caused by inadequate load testing" follows the passive structure correctly. Triggered and led to are active verbs that would need the causation direction reversed. Resulted in would also reverse the direction.
9 / 28
An SRE writes in a retrospective: "The alert fatigue _____ the on-call engineer missing the critical signal in the noise." Which causative correctly expresses that alert fatigue made the missing more likely?
Led to is correct. "Alert fatigue led to the engineer missing the critical signal" describes a sequential process: alert fatigue (established pattern) created conditions in which the engineer missed a signal. Triggered implies a discrete event-based causation — less natural for a gradual contributing condition like fatigue. Contributed to implies partial causation — which is accurate but "led to" is more direct when the link is strong. Resulted from reverses the causation.
10 / 28
A final postmortem summary states: "The outage _____ three independent failures: a network partition, a misconfigured circuit breaker, and an expired SSL certificate." Which causative correctly frames the compound root cause?
Was triggered by is correct. "The outage was triggered by three independent failures" uses passive voice and expresses that three concurrent initiating events caused the outage. "Triggered by" is appropriate here because the three failures were the initiating events — they started the outage, not merely worsened it. Resulted in reverses the direction. Contributed to would imply the outage existed before these failures. Was exacerbated by implies the outage already existed and these factors made it worse.
11 / 28
Reviewer: 'This bug was caused by a race condition. The system crashed because the thread wasn't properly synchronized.' Which causative verb best captures this situation in an incident report?
'Led to' is the most precise choice here. It indicates a direct causal link between the race condition (the initial problem) and the system crash – the standard way to describe an incident's root cause in technical reports. 'Triggered' implies a less immediate connection; 'resulted in' is too general, and 'contributed to' suggests multiple factors without specifying primary causation.
12 / 28
Slack message from @alice: "The slow API response caused the user interface to freeze. The server was overloaded.". Which causative verb best describes the relationship between these two events?
'Exacerbated' is correct because it accurately reflects how the slow API response (the initial problem) worsened the situation by leading to UI freezing. The overloaded server then compounded this issue – a common pattern in incident reports. 'Caused' is too simplistic; 'stemmed from' implies a more complex chain of events, and 'was due to' is redundant.
13 / 28
Reviewer: 'This bug was caused by a race condition. The system crashed because the thread wasn't properly synchronized.' Which causative verb best captures this situation in an incident report?
'Led to' is the most precise choice here. It indicates a direct causal link between the race condition (the initial problem) and the system crash – the standard way to describe an incident's root cause in technical reports. 'Triggered' implies a less immediate connection; 'resulted in' is too general, and 'contributed to' suggests multiple factors without specifying primary causation.
14 / 28
Slack message from @alice: "The slow API response caused the user interface to freeze. The server was overloaded.". Which causative verb best describes the relationship between these two events?
'Exacerbated' is correct because it accurately reflects how the slow API response (the initial problem) worsened the situation by leading to UI freezing. The overloaded server then compounded this issue – a common pattern in incident reports. 'Caused' is too simplistic; 'stemmed from' implies a more complex chain of events, and 'was due to' is redundant.
15 / 28
Reviewer: 'This bug was caused by a race condition. The system crashed because the thread wasn't properly synchronized.' Which causative verb best captures this situation in an incident report?
'Led to' is the most precise choice here. It indicates a direct causal link between the race condition (the initial problem) and the system crash – the standard way to describe an incident's root cause in technical reports. 'Triggered' implies a less immediate connection; 'resulted in' is too general, and 'contributed to' suggests multiple factors without specifying primary causation.
16 / 28
Slack message from @alice: "The slow API response caused the user interface to freeze. The server was overloaded.". Which causative verb best describes the relationship between these two events?
'Exacerbated' is correct because it accurately reflects how the slow API response (the initial problem) worsened the situation by leading to UI freezing. The overloaded server then compounded this issue – a common pattern in incident reports. 'Caused' is too simplistic; 'stemmed from' implies a more complex chain of events, and 'was due to' is redundant.
17 / 28
Reviewer: 'The database connection timeout triggered a cascading failure across multiple microservices.' Which causative verb best describes the primary relationship between these events in an incident report?
While caused is possible, resulted in more precisely describes how one event (the timeout) directly produced a chain reaction (the cascading failure). led to is acceptable but less specific. contributed to suggests a smaller role; the timeout was the initiating cause.
18 / 28
Code Review Comment: 'The service degradation stemmed from insufficient rate limiting on the API endpoint.' Select the most appropriate causative phrase to complete this comment in a post-incident summary.
'Led to' effectively conveys the consequence – the degradation (the problem) was a direct result of insufficient rate limiting. 'Was due to' is acceptable but slightly less dynamic and impactful. 'Occurred because of' is overly verbose, and 'caused' implies a more immediate action than what's described here.
19 / 28
@john.doe: 'The increased load on the queue caused significant latency in processing new orders.' Which causative verb best captures this relationship within a Slack message detailing an incident?
'Resulted in' is the most natural and accurate way to express that increased load directly led to latency. 'Produced' is too formal for casual Slack communication. 'Triggered' suggests a more sudden event than a gradual increase in load. 'Exacerbated' implies making something worse, which isn't the primary impact here.
20 / 28
During a post-mortem of a website outage, Sarah noted: 'The slow page load times were caused by excessive database queries.' Which causative phrase best describes this relationship in an incident report?
The correct answer highlights that excessive database queries *caused* the slow page load times. Option A describes a symptom (server overload), options C and D describe potential solutions or effects, not the causal relationship itself. The phrase 'increased' clearly indicates causation.
21 / 28
A developer writes in a Slack message: 'The recent code changes introduced a memory leak.' Which causative verb most accurately reflects this situation when documenting the incident?
'Introduced' directly states that the code changes were the *cause* of the memory leak. Options A, B and D all describe actions taken or a state of resolution rather than the root cause. The phrasing 'introduced' is crucial for accurately conveying the incident's origin.
22 / 28
In a code review comment, David states: 'The performance bottleneck was due to inefficient data serialization.' Which causative phrase is most appropriate to complete this statement in a post-incident summary?
'Introduced' correctly identifies that the *inefficient data serialization* was the root cause of the performance bottleneck. The other options describe actions or outcomes unrelated to the causal relationship. This phrasing is essential for accurate incident documentation.
23 / 28
During a stand-up update, Mark reports: 'The service degradation resulted from insufficient monitoring of the system.' Which causative phrase best captures this situation in an incident report?
'Neglected' accurately describes that the *lack* of sufficient monitoring was the reason for the service degradation. The other options describe improvements or actions taken after the issue arose, not the causal factor. It's important to pinpoint what *didn't* happen correctly.
24 / 28
Maria was investigating a sudden spike in error rates. She discovered that the new feature triggered excessive logging. The high volume of logs overloaded the monitoring system, which then triggered an alert. Which causative phrase best describes this chain of events in an incident report?
This scenario demonstrates a clear cause-and-effect relationship. The excessive logging directly *caused* the overload of the monitoring system. Option B is incorrect because the alert wasn't triggered by the overload itself; it was a consequence. Options C and D misrepresent the sequence of events.
25 / 28
Reviewer: 'The performance issues stemmed from a lack of caching.' Which causative phrase most accurately describes this situation in an incident report?
This question focuses on the core relationship between insufficient caching and poor performance. Option A correctly identifies that the *lack* of caching was the root cause, directly leading to the performance issues. Options B and C misinterpret the causality; Option D uses weaker language.
26 / 28
Reviewer: 'The intermittent failures were caused by a missing dependency. The build process wasn't configured to handle the dynamic nature of the environment.' Which causative verb best describes this situation in an incident report?
The key here is understanding that a 'missing dependency' actively *caused* the failures. 'Triggered' suggests something started because of it, but didn't directly cause the failure. 'Resolved' and 'mitigated' are incorrect because they describe solutions or reduction of impact, not the initial cause.
27 / 28
Reviewer: 'The performance degradation stemmed from inefficient database queries. The application was retrieving all rows from the table instead of using a more specific filter.' Select the most appropriate causative phrase to complete this comment in a post-incident summary.
'Resulted from' is the most precise. The inefficient queries *caused* the degradation. 'Amplified' and 'Compounded' suggest an increase in impact – while true, they don't capture the origin of the problem. 'Addressed' describes a solution, not the cause.
28 / 28
"Bob: The service outages were caused by insufficient error handling in the new feature. The system crashed when encountering unexpected data formats.". Which causative verb best captures this relationship within a Slack message detailing an incident?"
'Introduced' is correct because the faulty error handling actively *caused* the crashes. The other options describe attempts to mitigate or resolve the issue – they aren't the root cause of the initial failure.
What will I practise in "Causative Structures in Incident Reports — Grammar Exercise"?
Practice expressing cause-and-effect precisely in postmortems: caused by, resulted in, led to, triggered, was exacerbated by, contributed to.
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 28 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.