Double Negatives and Negation Precision in Technical English
5 exercises — practise avoiding double-negative errors while using intentional litotes for diplomatic hedging.
0 / 14 completed
1 / 14
Choose the sentence that correctly avoids an ungrammatical double negative:
"Doesn't have any coverage" is the grammatically correct standard English form: a single negative ("doesn't") paired with "any" (not "no") correctly expresses the absence of coverage. Options A and C both stack two negative markers ("doesn't/hasn't" + "no"), which in standard English grammar cancel out logically (implying the opposite — that there IS coverage) or are simply considered non-standard/ungrammatical, and should always be avoided in professional technical writing, where this kind of ambiguity can cause real confusion about test coverage. Option D compounds the double-negative error with an additional subject-verb agreement error ("don't" instead of "doesn't" with the singular subject "test suite").
2 / 14
Which sentence correctly uses an INTENTIONAL double-negative construction ("not uncommon") to make a hedged, diplomatic claim?
"Not uncommon" is a standard, grammatical litotes construction: "not" + a negative-prefixed adjective ("un-common") together produce a softened positive claim ("fairly common, but stated diplomatically"), which is a distinct and accepted pattern, unlike a raw double negative using two separate negation words. Option B stacks "not" with a second separate "not" rather than a negative-prefixed adjective, which is ungrammatical repetition, not the litotes pattern. Option C makes the same error with a contraction. Option D incorrectly uses "no" instead of "not" before the adjective, which does not form a grammatical sentence in this position.
3 / 14
A risk assessment states a cautious claim about feasibility. Choose the sentence with the correct grammatical litotes pattern:
"Not impossible" is the correct litotes pattern: "not" + a negative-prefixed adjective ("im-possible") to hedge a claim, meaning "technically possible, though difficult or undesirable" — softer and more cautious than simply saying "possible". Option B repeats "not" twice instead of using the negative-prefixed adjective form, which is an ungrammatical double negative rather than the accepted litotes pattern. Options C and D both incorrectly insert "no" alongside other negative markers, compounding into confusing, non-standard multiple negation that should never appear in professional risk documentation.
4 / 14
Which sentence contains an ungrammatical double negative that should be corrected before publishing in a style guide?
"Didn't introduce no new regressions" is the ungrammatical double negative: stacking "didn't" with "no" (instead of "any") produces non-standard grammar that should always be corrected to "didn't introduce any new regressions". The other three options are all grammatically correct: option A pairs a single negative ("couldn't") with "any", which is standard; option B ("not without complications") and option D ("not unreasonable") are both accepted litotes constructions using "not" + a negative-prefixed or negative-particle phrase to create a deliberate, diplomatic hedge, not an accidental double negative.
5 / 14
Choose the sentence that correctly uses "hardly" as a near-negative, avoiding a redundant double negative:
"Hardly ever expires" is correct: "hardly" already functions as a near-negative adverb by itself ("hardly ever" = "almost never") and should never be combined with another negation word like "doesn't" or "don't" in the same clause, since "hardly" is grammatically treated as negative for agreement purposes. Option A incorrectly pairs "doesn't" with "hardly", creating a redundant double negative. Option C stacks three negative-adjacent elements ("don't", "hardly", "never") and also has a subject-verb agreement error. Option D incorrectly combines "hardly" with "doesn't" in reversed order, which remains an ungrammatical double negation regardless of word order.
6 / 14
Emily (in a code review comment): "This function isn't failing often, and the logs aren't showing any errors." Does this sentence contain an ungrammatical double negative?
The sentence contains a double negative because 'not failing often' and 'aren't showing any errors' both assert the *absence* of failure. While technically acceptable in casual conversation, it's generally best to avoid this construction in formal technical documentation or code reviews where precision is important. A better phrasing would be: 'The function rarely fails, and there are no errors logged.'
7 / 14
Emily (in a code review comment): "This function isn't failing often, and the logs aren't showing any errors." Does this sentence contain an ungrammatical double negative?
The sentence contains a double negative because 'not failing often' and 'aren't showing any errors' both assert the *absence* of failure. While technically acceptable in casual conversation, it's generally best to avoid this construction in formal technical documentation or code reviews where precision is important. A better phrasing would be: 'The function rarely fails, and there are no errors logged.'
8 / 14
Emily (in a code review comment): "This function isn't failing often, and the logs aren't showing any errors." Does this sentence contain an ungrammatical double negative?
The sentence contains a double negative because 'not failing often' and 'aren't showing any errors' both assert the *absence* of failure. While technically acceptable in casual conversation, it's generally best to avoid this construction in formal technical documentation or code reviews where precision is important. A better phrasing would be: 'The function rarely fails, and there are no errors logged.'
9 / 14
During a Slack discussion about performance degradation of the user-authentication service, David writes: "The authentication isn't *unreliable*, and the response times aren't *slow*. It's working fine.". Which option best describes David's statement regarding double negatives?
David's statement contains a double negative because he uses both 'unreliable' (negative) and 'slow' (negative). While technically understandable, this construction creates ambiguity. The goal is to avoid redundancy when expressing negativity; using 'accurate' or 'fast' would be more precise and eliminate the confusion. The key here is recognizing that two negatives often cancel each other out.
10 / 14
As part of a pull request description for a new API endpoint, Sarah writes: "The API doesn't *fail* often, but it's not uncommon for users to experience occasional latency." Which of the following best explains the purpose of this sentence?
Sarah uses a deliberate double negative here – 'doesn't fail often' paired with 'not uncommon.' This construction, known as litotes, expresses a mild negation. It conveys that while failures *could* occur, they are rare enough to be considered acceptable. The intention is to soften the statement and avoid sounding overly critical or alarmist, which is common in technical documentation where managing expectations is crucial.
11 / 14
In a code review comment, John writes: "This feature isn't *never* deployed to production." What is the most appropriate revision to ensure clarity and grammatical correctness?
The original sentence contains a redundant and grammatically incorrect double negative. The phrase 'rarely deployed' provides a clear and unambiguous way of expressing the same idea – that deployment is uncommon. Option B is a simpler, correct alternative. Options C and D both introduce further unnecessary negatives.
12 / 14
In a code review comment, David says: "The process isn't *not* terminated prematurely." What is the best way to correct this sentence while maintaining the intended meaning?
David's sentence uses a double negative (not not) to strongly suggest that the process *is* terminated properly. The correct revision is simply 'The process is not terminated prematurely,' which eliminates the redundancy and clearly states the desired outcome. Options C and D introduce further unnecessary negatives, while option B overstates the situation.
13 / 14
In a Slack message regarding an API response, Alex writes: "The service doesn't *rarely* return errors, and the latency isn't *unusually high*. It seems stable.". Which of the following best explains why this sentence utilizes intentional double negatives effectively?
This sentence employs intentional double negatives – 'doesn't rarely' and 'isn't unusually high' – to create a hedged statement. This technique is common in technical communication when delivering potentially bad news with tact. The goal isn't to deny problems but to frame them as minor or infrequent, demonstrating careful observation and risk management.
14 / 14
During a standup meeting, Liam says: "We aren't *not* fixing the critical security vulnerability." What is the most appropriate way to rephrase his statement for clarity and precision?
Liam's original statement uses a confusing double negative. The intended meaning is that they *are* fixing it. Option 3 directly and clearly states their action. Options 1 and 2 are overly verbose and still contain the problematic structure. Option 4 misinterprets his intent.
What will I practise in "Double Negatives and Negation Precision in Technical English — IT Grammar Exercise"?
Practise avoiding ungrammatical double negatives while correctly using intentional litotes constructions like not uncommon and not impossible for hedged
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 14 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.