Existential There Constructions in Technical Writing
5 exercises — using there is/are correctly with agreement and relative clauses, and knowing when a direct subject-verb structure is more concise.
Key patterns:
verb agrees with the notional subject that follows "there": there are three issues
avoid the contraction "there's" before plural subjects, even informally
existential "there" is useful for genuinely introducing new information
prefer a direct subject-verb structure when it improves concision: many factors influence... over there are many factors that influence...
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses an existential "there is/are" construction with correct subject-verb agreement to introduce a known issue in a bug report?
In existential "there" constructions, the verb agrees with the notional subject that follows — here, the plural "three known issues" requires "are". Option A incorrectly uses singular "is". Option C's contraction "there's" is a common informal error since it hides the singular verb before a plural noun and should be avoided in formal technical writing regardless. Option D uses "has", which is not a form of "be" and doesn't belong in this construction at all.
2 / 5
Which sentence demonstrates the better stylistic choice for a technical spec: existential "there is" versus a more direct, information-dense alternative?
While all four are grammatical, option B is the stylistically preferred choice in technical writing: it avoids the existential "there is" construction, which buries the real subject and verb ("API", "must validate") behind a vague placeholder, and instead states the requirement directly and concisely. Options A, C, and D all use existential or nominalized structures that add words without adding meaning — a common source of unnecessary wordiness in specs that reviewers often flag.
3 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses existential "there" with a relative clause to introduce a specific scenario in a postmortem, where the direct alternative would be awkward?
Option A is correctly formed: there was a brief window during which... uses existential "there" appropriately here because the sentence is genuinely introducing a new, previously unmentioned circumstance, and the relative clause "during which" is correctly attached and non-redundant. Option B incorrectly duplicates the preposition information both in "which" and "during it". Option C and D scramble the required word order of the existential construction ("there + be + subject").
4 / 5
A code review comment reads: "There _____ several edge cases that this test suite doesn't cover, such as empty payloads and expired tokens." Which verb form is correct?
"Are" is correct because the notional subject "several edge cases" is plural, and the present tense matches the ongoing, current state of the test suite (not a past event). Option A's "is" fails plural agreement. Option C's "was" incorrectly shifts to past tense for a state that is still true. Option D's "has been" mismatches both tense expectations and doesn't fit standard existential "there" verb selection for a present state description.
5 / 5
Which revision correctly eliminates unnecessary existential "there is/are" wordiness while preserving meaning, following the technical-writing best practice of leading with the real subject?
Option A demonstrates the standard revision technique: move the notional subject ("many factors") into the true grammatical subject position and use it directly with an active verb ("influence"), removing the existential filler entirely. This is more concise and direct — the recommended approach in technical style guides. Options B, C, and D all retain or add awkward existential/fronting structures that make the sentence harder to parse without improving on the original.