5 exercises — fixing negative concord errors ("didn't find no errors") in bug reports and status updates, and distinguishing them from deliberate litotes.
0 / 14 completed
1 / 14
A non-native English speaker, translating directly from a language that stacks negatives for emphasis, writes: "We didn't find no errors in the log." What does this sentence mean in standard English, and is it what the speaker intended?
Option B is correct, with an important caveat: in many other languages (Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, and others), stacking negative words is negative concord — the negatives agree with and reinforce each other, all pointing the same direction ("no encontramos ningún error" = "we found no errors, period"). Standard formal English does not work this way: two negatives ("didn't" + "no") are read as logically cancelling, technically yielding a positive meaning ("we did find errors"), which is the opposite of most speakers' intent — a genuine source of miscommunication in technical writing. (Colloquial/dialectal English sometimes uses double negatives for emphasis too, but this is non-standard and should be avoided in professional technical writing, where precision is paramount.) Fix: "We didn't find any errors in the log" or "We found no errors in the log."
2 / 14
Which sentence correctly avoids negative concord while stating that a config file has no unused variables?
"The config file doesn't have any unused variables" is correct. The pattern to memorize: pair a negated verb ("doesn't have") with an indefinite/non-negative quantifier ("any"), never with a second negative word ("no", "none", "nobody", "nothing"). This is the core fix for negative concord errors: replace "no" with "any" once the verb is already negated. Option A ("doesn't have no") stacks two negatives incorrectly. Option B and D are similarly doubled and ungrammatical in standard English. Alternative correct form: "The config file has no unused variables" — here "no" pairs with an affirmative verb ("has"), which is also correct; the rule is one negative per clause, expressed either as a negated verb + "any", or an affirmative verb + "no".
3 / 14
Which of these is a rare but grammatically correct case where two negatives are intentional and do NOT count as an error?
"This solution is not uncommon" is a genuine, standard, grammatically correct double negative — but it works completely differently from the errors in the other options. This is litotes, a deliberate rhetorical device where "not" + a negatively-prefixed word ("un-common") produces a careful, understated positive meaning ("fairly common, though I don't want to overstate it"), not accidental cancellation or emphatic stacking. It is a single, controlled negation pattern ("not" + one negative-prefixed adjective), fundamentally different from stacking two separate negative words in the same clause ("didn't... no", "doesn't... never", "isn't... nothing" — all genuine errors in the other options, examples of non-standard negative concord). Distinguishing rule: litotes uses exactly one grammatical negation plus one lexically negative word for a specific rhetorical effect; negative concord errors stack two full negative markers that a listener would otherwise expect to cancel.
4 / 14
A support ticket response says: "I couldn't reproduce the issue with none of the test accounts." What is the standard-English fix?
"I couldn't reproduce the issue with any of the test accounts" is correct — replacing "none" with "any" once the verb is already negated ("couldn't"), the same fix pattern as the config-file example. Option B removes the negation from the verb entirely, which changes the meaning to the opposite of what was likely intended (implying the issue WAS reproduced with zero accounts — confusing and not the intended message). Option C adds a third negative, compounding the error rather than fixing it. Support/bug-report tip: this exact pattern ("couldn't reproduce with none/no") is one of the most common negative concord errors in bug reports and support tickets from non-native speakers — always check that only one true negative (the verb OR the quantifier, not both) survives per clause.
5 / 14
Which quantifier correctly completes: "The migration script hasn't caused _____ downtime so far"?
"Any" is correct: "hasn't caused any downtime" — a negated verb ("hasn't") paired with the non-negative quantifier "any", the standard construction. "No" and "none" (options A and B) would each create a double negative when paired with the already-negated verb "hasn't" ("hasn't caused no downtime"), triggering the same negative concord issue seen throughout this set. Option D is nonsensical, stacking three negation markers. Full pattern to internalize for status updates: "X hasn't caused any downtime" (negated verb + any) is equivalent in meaning to "X has caused no downtime" (affirmative verb + no) — choose one pattern per sentence, never mix a negated verb with a negative quantifier in the same clause.
6 / 14
Sarah from the DevOps team wrote this comment on a code review: 'We didn't see no performance bottlenecks in the test environment.' What does Sarah *really* mean, and what should she say to be clearer?
Sarah's original sentence uses double negation ('didn't see no'). This creates a negative concord error. The intended meaning is that there were *no* identified bottlenecks. Option A provides the most precise and professional phrasing, avoiding the confusing double negative. Options B and C are also acceptable but less direct than A.
7 / 14
Maria sends this Slack message to her team: 'We haven't got no documentation for the new API.' In what situation would using both negative words be a deliberate stylistic choice and *not* an error?
While negative concord is generally an error, in specific contexts, double negatives can be used for emphasis. Option 2 accurately describes this scenario: when discussing a situation where there *is* genuinely 'no' documentation—a very limited case. The other options misinterpret the intended use of the double negative.
8 / 14
Sarah from the DevOps team wrote this comment on a code review: 'We didn't see no performance bottlenecks in the test environment.' What does Sarah *really* mean, and what should she say to be clearer?
Sarah's original sentence uses double negation ('didn't see no'). This creates a negative concord error. The intended meaning is that there were *no* identified bottlenecks. Option A provides the most precise and professional phrasing, avoiding the confusing double negative. Options B and C are also acceptable but less direct than A.
9 / 14
Maria sends this Slack message to her team: 'We haven't got no documentation for the new API.' In what situation would using both negative words be a deliberate stylistic choice and *not* an error?
While negative concord is generally an error, in specific contexts, double negatives can be used for emphasis. Option 2 accurately describes this scenario: when discussing a situation where there *is* genuinely 'no' documentation—a very limited case. The other options misinterpret the intended use of the double negative.
10 / 14
Sarah from the DevOps team wrote this comment on a code review: 'We didn't see no performance bottlenecks in the test environment.' What does Sarah *really* mean, and what should she say to be clearer?
Sarah's original sentence uses double negation ('didn't see no'). This creates a negative concord error. The intended meaning is that there were *no* identified bottlenecks. Option A provides the most precise and professional phrasing, avoiding the confusing double negative. Options B and C are also acceptable but less direct than A.
11 / 14
Maria sends this Slack message to her team: 'We haven't got no documentation for the new API.' In what situation would using both negative words be a deliberate stylistic choice and *not* an error?
While negative concord is generally an error, in specific contexts, double negatives can be used for emphasis. Option 2 accurately describes this scenario: when discussing a situation where there *is* genuinely 'no' documentation—a very limited case. The other options misinterpret the intended use of the double negative.
12 / 14
Standup Update: 'I didn't address no critical bugs today.'
Mark is providing a daily standup update. How should Mark revise this statement to be more effective and avoid negative concord?
Mark's original statement uses double negatives. 'I addressed zero critical bugs' is the clearest and most direct way to convey that he didn't fix any critical bugs. Options B and C use different phrasing but still contain negative concord. Option D is overly verbose and doesn't resolve the core issue.
13 / 14
Alex (DevOps): 'We haven't got no updates on the database migration.'
This Slack message is common in technical teams. In what context might Alex be intentionally using both negative words and it *not* represent a grammatical error? Choose the most appropriate answer.
While negative concord is generally incorrect in formal technical writing, it can occur intentionally in informal contexts like Slack messages. Option 3 accurately identifies this scenario – mimicking spoken language often involves using double negatives for emphasis or stylistic effect. The other options misinterpret the potential reasons behind Alex's phrasing.
14 / 14
DevOps Engineer (Ben): 'We haven't got no updates on the Kubernetes cluster scaling.'
Ben is sending this message in a Slack channel. In what situation might Ben intentionally use both negative words to emphasize the *lack* of updates, and why would this be acceptable?
Ben is likely using double negatives to strongly convey the absence of updates. This can be acceptable in Slack when emphasizing urgency or frustration. Options 2, 3, and 4 are less appropriate contexts for this type of phrasing; they would typically require more formal language.
What will I practise in "Avoiding Double Negatives (Negative Concord) in Technical English — Grammar Exercise"?
Practise avoiding negative concord errors like "doesn't have no" by pairing negated verbs with any/none correctly in bug reports and status updates.
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.