5 exercises — practise negative question forms for gentle suggestions and confirmation in standups and code reviews.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
A reviewer wants to gently suggest an alternative approach. Which negative question is grammatically correct?
"Shouldn't we cache..." is the correct negative question form: contracted negative auxiliary ("shouldn't") + subject + base verb. This is a common, softened way to suggest an alternative in code review, implying "I think we should" while inviting disagreement. Option A spells out "should not" before "we", which is grammatically unusual word order for a negative question (native speakers say "Shouldn't we", not "Should not we" — the uncontracted negative question requires "Should we not", not this order). Option C incorrectly adds "to" before the base verb "cache", which is never used after a bare modal. Option D stacks two negatives incorrectly ("Don't shouldn't"), which is doubly ungrammatical.
2 / 5
Which is the correct fully uncontracted (formal) form of "Doesn't this endpoint need authentication?"
"Does this endpoint not need authentication?" is the correct uncontracted negative question: auxiliary ("does") + subject ("this endpoint") + "not" + base verb. In formal/uncontracted negative questions, "not" moves after the subject rather than staying attached to the auxiliary. Option A ("Does not this endpoint...") keeps "not" attached to "does" before the subject, which sounds archaic and is not standard modern English (it was common in older formal English but reads oddly today). Option B scrambles the word order entirely. Option D is not a question at all — it lacks subject-auxiliary inversion and would only work as a question with rising intonation in speech, not in written technical English.
3 / 5
An engineer expresses surprise in a standup: "_____ the migration already finished? I thought it would take all week." Choose the correct negative question opener.
"Hasn't the migration already finished?" is correct because "the migration" is a third-person singular subject, requiring "has" (and its negative contraction "hasn't"), not "have"/"haven't", which is used for plural or first/second-person subjects. Option A ("Haven't") would require a plural or you/I/we subject, which does not match "the migration". Option B ("Has not've") is not a valid contraction in English — you cannot stack "not" and "'ve" this way. Option C ("Doesn't have") incorrectly mixes the present perfect meaning (has it finished) with a "does" auxiliary construction, which does not combine with "finished" correctly here.
4 / 5
Which negative question is the natural way to seek confirmation that a teammate has already reviewed a PR?
"Didn't you already review this PR yesterday?" is correct: past-tense negative auxiliary ("didn't") + subject + base verb ("review"), used to seek confirmation of something the speaker believes to be true. Option A incorrectly pairs the present-tense auxiliary "don't" with the past-tense verb "reviewed" — auxiliaries and main verbs must agree in form (with "did", the main verb reverts to its base form, not the past tense, since "did" itself already carries the past tense). Option C has scrambled word order. Option D incorrectly uses the "-ing" form "reviewing" after "didn't", when the base form "review" is required.
5 / 5
Which negative question best signals mild criticism about a missing test, appropriate for a professional code review comment?
"Shouldn't there be a test covering this edge case?" correctly applies negative-question inversion to the existential "there" construction: negative auxiliary ("shouldn't") + "there" + base verb ("be"). This softly implies "I think there should be a test" while phrasing it as an open question — a common, polite way to flag a gap in a code review. Option A mixes "isn't" (present tense, present state) with "be" (base form), which is grammatically inconsistent — "isn't there a test" would be correct on its own, but not combined with "be". Option B reverses the required order of "there" and "be". Option C breaks the existential "there" pattern entirely and produces an ungrammatical sentence.