Which sentence uses a comment clause most effectively in a code review?
Option B is correct. "As expected" is a comment clause — a parenthetical phrase that adds the writer's evaluative stance without interrupting the main statement. Setting it off with commas makes it clearly parenthetical. Option C omits the comma before "as expected", which merges it into the main clause and changes the reading slightly. Option D (fronted) is also acceptable but less common in code review comments where the main finding ("this approach works") should come first. Comment clauses in code reviews signal that the result aligns with the design intent — an important distinction from "it accidentally works".
2 / 5
A technical document includes: "The API rate limit is 1,000 requests per minute. __ this may be insufficient for high-traffic scenarios." Which comment clause opener is most appropriate?
Option D is correct — both "Note that" and "It is worth noting" are valid comment clause openers for flagging a potential concern. "Note that" is more direct and concise, preferred in API docs and READMEs where brevity matters. "It is worth noting" is slightly more formal and hedged, suitable for architecture documents or formal specifications. "As expected" would be wrong here — it implies the insufficiency was anticipated, which may not be the case. Both A and C direct the reader's attention to important supplementary information without making it the main claim.
3 / 5
Identify the sentence where "bear in mind" is used incorrectly.
Option B is the awkward usage. While grammatically permissible, "bear in mind the token" without a "that"-clause creates an ambiguous object. The standard construction is "bear in mind that + clause" — the complement must be a full proposition, not just a noun phrase. Options A and C follow this pattern correctly. Option D uses a colon, which is a slightly informal but acceptable alternative in technical writing (think docs, wikis, Slack posts). In formal documentation, always follow "bear in mind" with a "that"-clause to ensure the reader knows exactly what to keep in mind.
4 / 5
A PR description reads: "The new indexing strategy reduces query time by ~40%. __, the improvement is most significant on tables with more than 1M rows." Which comment clause opener fits best?
Option B is correct. "It is worth noting that" is the appropriate opener here because it introduces a nuance or qualification — the improvement is real, but its magnitude varies. This is a refinement of the main claim, not a warning or a directive. "Bear in mind" suggests the reader must actively remember this for a future action, which is not quite right here. "As expected" would imply this variation was predicted by the design, which may or may not be true. "Note" without "that" is too abrupt before a full clause. "It is worth noting that" is the most natural choice for adding technical nuance to a stated result.
5 / 5
Which of these comment clauses is overused and should be avoided in technical writing according to most style guides?
Option C is correct. "Needless to say" is on the list of phrases most technical style guides (Google, Microsoft, Apple) flag as either condescending or redundant. If something is truly needless to say, don't say it — and if it needs to be said, saying "needless to say" makes the reader feel judged for not already knowing it. In security documentation, this is especially problematic: telling users "needless to say, don't hardcode credentials" implies the warning is trivial, which can cause readers to skip it. The other options are all standard, reader-respecting comment clause patterns.