Ellipsis in Technical Documentation
0 / 10 completed
1 / 10
A commit message reads:
"Fixed the race condition in the auth service and fixed the race condition in the payment service."
Which version uses ellipsis correctly to avoid repetition?
"Fixed the race condition in the auth service and fixed the race condition in the payment service."
Which version uses ellipsis correctly to avoid repetition?
Option B is correct. This is the most concise and natural ellipsis: "the race condition" is stated once, and the shared noun is omitted in the second part. "in the auth and payment services" uses coordination at the noun phrase level, which is more elegant than Option A (which keeps both prepositional phrases). Option C is ungrammatical. Option D creates two sentences unnecessarily — ellipsis within a single sentence is cleaner.
2 / 10
An API doc reads:
"The GET endpoint returns JSON. The POST endpoint returns JSON. The PUT endpoint returns JSON."
Which rewrite uses ellipsis correctly?
"The GET endpoint returns JSON. The POST endpoint returns JSON. The PUT endpoint returns JSON."
Which rewrite uses ellipsis correctly?
Option A is correct. Subject ellipsis ("GET, POST, and PUT endpoints") combined with a single shared predicate ("all return JSON") is the most efficient and natural resolution. Option B removes the article but repeats "returns JSON" twice unnecessarily. Option C uses "and so does" — correct but verbose. Option D is ungrammatical — the predicate "returns JSON" cannot be omitted from the final items without restructuring.
3 / 10
A code review comment reads:
"The unit tests are passing but the integration tests are not passing."
Which ellipsis is grammatically correct and natural?
"The unit tests are passing but the integration tests are not passing."
Which ellipsis is grammatically correct and natural?
Both A and B are correct. Ellipsis allows omission of the repeated verb phrase. Option B ("are not") uses VP ellipsis — omitting the lexical verb "passing" but keeping the auxiliary. Option A moves the negative before the noun phrase ("not the integration tests") — also grammatical, slightly more emphatic. Both are natural in professional English. Option C is ungrammatical — "not the integration tests are" inverts the subject-auxiliary order incorrectly.
4 / 10
A changelog entry reads:
"In v2.0, authentication is handled by OAuth. In v1.0, authentication was handled by basic auth."
Which version uses ellipsis to improve conciseness?
"In v2.0, authentication is handled by OAuth. In v1.0, authentication was handled by basic auth."
Which version uses ellipsis to improve conciseness?
Option B is correct for a written technical document. The ellipsis omits "authentication is/was handled" in the second clause, leaving just the prepositional phrase "by basic auth". This is grammatically clean parallel ellipsis. Option C is a table-style notation that works in some docs but loses the comparative structure. Option A creates an awkward sentence with inconsistent tense. Option D avoids ellipsis and introduces unnecessary repetition.
5 / 10
A developer writes in a Slack message:
"I can review your PR today or review it tomorrow."
Which is the most natural ellipsis?
"I can review your PR today or review it tomorrow."
Which is the most natural ellipsis?
Option A is correct and most natural. In a list of time options, the repeated verb phrase "review it" can be fully omitted when the time adverbials ("today or tomorrow") carry sufficient meaning. This is called "gapping" or coordination ellipsis. Options B and C retain unnecessary repetition. Option D is grammatical but changes the information focus and sounds stilted in a Slack context.
6 / 10
A specification reads:
"The primary database is PostgreSQL. The replica database is also PostgreSQL."
Which uses ellipsis most effectively?
"The primary database is PostgreSQL. The replica database is also PostgreSQL."
Which uses ellipsis most effectively?
All three options are equally correct uses of ellipsis or coordination to avoid repetition. Option A uses noun coordination ("primary and replica databases") with a shared predicate. Option B uses a "so-construction" ("as is the replica") — a formal, technical register choice. Option C uses subject coordination with post-nominal "both". All three are grammatically accurate and stylistically appropriate for technical documentation — the choice depends on what the writer wants to foreground.
7 / 10
A postmortem reads:
"The alert fired at 14:22 UTC. The on-call engineer was paged at 14:22 UTC."
Which ellipsis rewrite is best?
"The alert fired at 14:22 UTC. The on-call engineer was paged at 14:22 UTC."
Which ellipsis rewrite is best?
Option B is correct. Moving the shared time adverbial ("at 14:22 UTC") to the front of the sentence — before the two coordinated clauses — allows both actions to share the time reference without repetition. This is called "fronting" combined with ellipsis. Option A keeps both subjects but makes it ambiguous whether the paging also happened at 14:22. Option C uses "so did" incorrectly — "fired" and "was paged" are different events. Option D is a comma splice.
8 / 10
Which sentence contains an incorrect use of ellipsis that creates ambiguity?
Option D is potentially ambiguous. "We deployed to staging and production on Friday" uses ellipsis to omit "deployed" — but it is unclear whether both deployments happened on Friday, or whether staging was deployed on Friday and production on a different day. In incident or release documentation, this ambiguity is problematic. The correct version would be "We deployed to staging on Friday and to production also on Friday" — or "We deployed to staging and production, both on Friday." The other options are unambiguous.
9 / 10
A technical spec reads:
"Version 3 supports async processing. Version 2 does not support async processing."
Which rewrite uses auxiliary ellipsis correctly?
"Version 3 supports async processing. Version 2 does not support async processing."
Which rewrite uses auxiliary ellipsis correctly?
Option A is correct. This is VP (verb phrase) ellipsis: the auxiliary "does" is kept in the second clause, but the lexical verb phrase "support async processing" is omitted because it is recoverable from context. "Version 2 does not" is grammatically complete and natural. Option B omits the auxiliary ("not" alone cannot be the predicate). Option C keeps "does not support" without the object — which is acceptable but incomplete-sounding. Option D creates a clumsy split sentence.
10 / 10
A PR description reads:
"This change improves performance on large datasets but degrades performance on small datasets."
Which ellipsis version is most professional and concise?
"This change improves performance on large datasets but degrades performance on small datasets."
Which ellipsis version is most professional and concise?
Option A is correct and most natural. "Performance" is replaced by the pronoun "it" (anaphoric reference), and "datasets" is replaced by "ones" (pro-nominal ellipsis). Both substitutions are standard in professional English and avoid exact repetition while maintaining clarity. Option B repeats "performance on ... datasets" — no ellipsis. Option C is ambiguous about what is being improved/degraded. Option D creates a grammatical error — "improves but degrades" cannot take a single object without the split being clear.