5 advanced exercises — use nominal clauses confidently in postmortems, design documents, RFCs, and standups. Covers that-clauses, wh-clauses, and the mandative subjunctive.
Nominal clause starters — quick reference
that — reports known content: "The logs confirmed that the timeout occurred at 14:32."
what — "the thing that": "What the traces show is a cascading failure."
whether — open binary question: "Whether to use REST or gRPC is still undecided."
how — manner/method: "The doc explains how the token refresh works."
why — reason as clause: "Why the service degraded is explained in section 4."
Verbs that take that-clauses: conclude, confirm, note, find, determine, suggest, recommend, require, propose, indicate, state, report
0 / 40 completed
1 / 40
A postmortem report contains this sentence: "The incident review board _____ the monitoring alert threshold had been set too high, which delayed detection by 12 minutes." Which verb correctly introduces a nominal that-clause in a formal report?
Concluded that is correct. Verbs that can introduce a nominal that-clause fall into specific semantic groups: reporting/thinking verbs: conclude, find, determine, establish, note, observe, confirm; communication verbs: state, report, indicate, suggest, recommend, propose; cognitive verbs: believe, assume, consider, expect. The incorrect options fail because: told requires a personal object ("told the team that…"); spoke and discussed do not take a that-clause as a direct object in standard usage ("discussed that…" is non-standard — use "discussed the fact that" or simply rephrase). In technical reports, prefer formal verbs: "The analysis confirmed that… / The logs indicated that… / The review established that…"
2 / 40
A design doc opens with: "_____ the current monolith cannot handle more than 500 concurrent connections is evident from the load test results attached in Appendix A." Which option correctly uses a nominal clause as the subject of the sentence?
A nominal that-clause as subject is a clause starting with that which functions as the grammatical subject of the main verb. Structure: That + [clause] + is/was/has been + [adjective/noun phrase]. Examples in technical writing: "That the API response time exceeds 2 seconds is unacceptable for production." / "That this approach reduces latency by 40% is demonstrated in Figure 3." The other options introduce adverbial clauses (cause, contrast, time) — they modify the main clause but cannot stand as the subject. Note: in formal writing, the that-clause subject is preferred over the informal "It is evident that…" extraposition, though extraposition ("It is evident that the monolith cannot…") is also grammatically correct and very common.
3 / 40
During a sprint standup, a developer says: "I want to flag _____ might cause a regression in the payment flow — we changed the decimal rounding logic yesterday." Which option correctly uses a wh-nominal clause?
What is correct here. A wh-nominal clause (also called a free relative clause) uses a wh-word as both the connector and part of the clause's meaning. What means "the thing that" and can function as the direct object of a reporting verb. Structure: verb + what/who/how/whether + [clause]. Examples in tech contexts: "The logs show what triggered the cascade failure." / "We need to agree on how we will handle the schema migration." / "The question is whether we deploy tonight or wait until Monday." Why not the others: that introduces a content clause where the content is known; which requires an antecedent noun; how would need to be followed by a full clause with a subject and verb ("how this might cause…").
4 / 40
An RFC (Request for Comments) document includes: "The authors recommend _____ all API consumers migrate to the v3 endpoints before the deprecation deadline of Q4 2026." Which is grammatically correct?
Recommend that introduces a nominal that-clause with the mandative subjunctive — the base form of the verb (no -s, no -ed, no auxiliary) regardless of the subject. This is the formal register used in RFCs, technical specifications, and legal/policy documents. Examples: "We recommend that the service use exponential backoff." (not "uses") / "The spec requires that all responses include a Content-Type header." Other verbs that trigger the mandative subjunctive: require, suggest, propose, insist, demand, mandate, specify. The mandative subjunctive is more common in American English; British English often uses "should": "We recommend that all consumers should migrate…" Both are accepted in formal technical writing. Option B ("recommend for… to") is informal and non-standard in this context.
5 / 40
A system design document contains: "_____ we deploy the gateway before the backend services are ready remains a significant operational risk that should be addressed in the rollout plan." Which nominal clause starter is correct?
Whether introduces a nominal clause expressing a binary question or uncertainty — it is the correct choice when the clause functions as a subject or object and presents an open question. Structure: Whether + [clause] + is/remains/has been + [noun/adjective]. The sentence presents an unresolved question (deploy early or not?) as a risk. More examples from tech writing: "Whether the cache invalidation is synchronous or asynchronous affects the consistency guarantees." / "The team debated whether to use REST or GraphQL for the public API." Why not the others: if introduces conditional clauses and cannot be a nominal subject ("If we deploy… remains a risk" is ungrammatical); when and since are adverbial conjunctions of time and reason respectively, and cannot function as nominal clause subjects in this structure.
6 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
7 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
8 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
9 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
10 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
11 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
12 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
13 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
14 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
15 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
16 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
17 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
18 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
19 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
20 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
21 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
22 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
23 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
24 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
25 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
26 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
27 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
28 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
29 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
30 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
31 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
32 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
33 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
34 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
35 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
36 / 40
DevOps Engineer Alex: "I'm concerned that the automated deployment process, if it fails mid-execution, could corrupt the database. We need to document precisely what happens in those circumstances."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause as an object of a concern. The key here is recognizing that 'the potential for data corruption' functions as the *thing* being concerned about. Option A correctly uses 'is a critical concern' while options B, C and D rephrase the same idea awkwardly.
37 / 40
Senior Developer Sarah: "The API documentation states that requests exceeding 1MB in size should be chunked. We need to ensure our code consistently handles this requirement."
This tests the use of a nominal clause as the subject of a statement. 'That request sizes exceed 1MB' is the core information being conveyed – it's what *needs* to be handled. Options A and D are passive constructions, while option C incorrectly uses 'needs to be done' which isn't the most concise phrasing here.
38 / 40
QA Tester Ben: "The error logs indicate that the application is returning a 500 Internal Server Error when attempting to connect to the legacy database. Specifically, if the connection string is outdated."
This question focuses on using a nominal clause to explain *why* something is happening. 'The 500 error arises from' clearly establishes a cause-and-effect relationship, which is what the nominal clause is designed to do. The other options present the same information in less direct or grammatically sound ways.
39 / 40
Technical Writer Emily: "The release notes mention that users should be aware of potential performance degradation if they are running older versions of the software. We need to clearly state this condition."
Here, the nominal clause 'that performance degradation might happen' functions as the subject of the sentence. It's a standard way to express a potential consequence. Options A and D are less precise; option C incorrectly uses 'can cause'. This question tests the nuanced use of 'might' within a nominal clause.
40 / 40
Lead Developer Chris: "The system documentation specifies that any changes to the authentication protocol require a full rollback if they introduce compatibility issues. We should document this thoroughly."
This question tests the use of a nominal clause to explain the *consequence* of incompatibility. 'That compatibility issues trigger' is the most natural and grammatically correct construction. The other options are less direct or employ awkward phrasing (e.g., 'necessitate', 'arises').
What will I practise in "Nominal (Noun) Clauses in Technical Communication — IT English Grammar Exercise"?
Practice that-clauses, wh-clauses, and whether-clauses in technical writing: design docs, postmortems, RFCs, and standups.
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 40 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.