Expressing Numbers and Metrics Precisely
0 / 10 completed
1 / 10
An engineer says: "We reduced database query time _____ 800ms _____ 200ms."
Which prepositions are correct?
Which prepositions are correct?
From / to is correct. "Reduced X from [old value] to [new value]" is the standard structure for expressing before-and-after improvements with absolute values. "Reduced by" introduces a delta value (e.g., "reduced by 600ms"). "From / by" would mix the two structures incorrectly. "At / to" is not standard for expressing a change in measurement.
2 / 10
A performance report reads: "After optimisation, build time improved _____ — from 12 minutes to under 4 minutes."
Which expression most naturally captures a threefold improvement?
Which expression most naturally captures a threefold improvement?
By 3× is correct. "Improved by 3×" means the result is 3 times better — the new value is 1/3 of the original. The "×" symbol with "by" is the standard technical expression for multiplicative improvement. "By 3" is ambiguous — it could mean by 3 units. "Three times over" is non-standard. "300 percent" is technically correct (a 300% improvement = 4× original, not 3×) and is often confused; "3×" is clearer in technical contexts.
3 / 10
A monitoring dashboard label reads: "Response time _____ 200ms at the 99th percentile."
Which phrasing is most accurate and standard?
Which phrasing is most accurate and standard?
P99 of is correct. The standard technical expression is "a P99 of 200ms" (used as a noun phrase) or "P99 latency of 200ms." This treats P99 as a measurement type. "P99 is 200ms" and "P99 equals 200ms" are grammatically correct in documentation or reports. "At P99:" is used in dashboards as a label prefix. In prose, "a P99 of 200ms" is the most natural full-sentence form.
4 / 10
A postmortem reads: "During the incident, error rate _____ from 0.1% to 12%."
Which verb collocates most naturally with "error rate" in incident narrative?
Which verb collocates most naturally with "error rate" in incident narrative?
Jumped is correct. "Jump" collocates naturally with sudden metric increases in technical English: "error rate jumped to X%", "latency jumped from Y to Z." Other natural collocations: "spiked", "climbed", "rose". "Made" does not collocate with rates or metrics. "Went to" is possible but informal and vague. "Turned" does not collocate with error rate.
5 / 10
An architect presents: "The new service handles _____ 5,000 requests per second under peak load."
Which phrase most accurately expresses a maximum capacity?
Which phrase most accurately expresses a maximum capacity?
Up to is correct. "Up to X" sets an upper bound — it means the system handles at most X requests per second under the stated condition. This is the standard phrase for expressing capacity limits. "At least 5,000 req/s" would be a lower bound (a minimum guarantee). "Around 5,000 req/s" is an approximation without specifying direction. "Over 5,000 req/s" implies exceeding that figure — a different claim.
6 / 10
A benchmark report says: "The new algorithm is _____ faster than the previous implementation."
Which phrasing is most precise for a performance comparison?
Which phrasing is most precise for a performance comparison?
Twice as is correct for a 2× comparison. "Twice as fast" is standard — it means the new implementation completes the same work in half the time. "Two times faster" is technically ambiguous in English (some interpret it as 3× the speed), but it is widely accepted in technical contexts. "Two times as much" would collocate with quantities (twice as much memory), not speed. "2× more" is also ambiguous — strictly, "2× more" means 3× total — avoid it in precise technical reporting.
7 / 10
A capacity planning note reads: "We must provision _____ additional storage than current usage to accommodate two years of growth."
Which quantifier expresses an amount equal to the current usage added on top?
Which quantifier expresses an amount equal to the current usage added on top?
100% more is correct. "100% more" means an increase equal to 100% of the current amount — i.e., double the total. "Twice the additional storage" is ambiguous. "As much as" without a reference value is incomplete. "Double the additional storage" would mean double the current usage added on top of the current usage — which would be 3× total, not 2×. "100% more" clearly states the increment is 100% of the base, making total = 200% of current.
8 / 10
An SRE report states: "The service maintained an error rate of _____ throughout the deployment window."
Which expression most precisely communicates a very low error rate?
Which expression most precisely communicates a very low error rate?
All of the above are acceptable is correct. "Less than 1%", "under 1%", and "below 1%" are all standard and interchangeable in technical reporting. The choice is stylistic: "under 1%" and "below 1%" are slightly more concise and common in dashboard descriptions. "Less than 1%" is slightly more formal and precise. In a report or SLA, any of these would be fully acceptable. The key is consistency within a document.
9 / 10
Which number expression is INCORRECT or misleading in a technical report?
Option C is incorrect. "Fell 3×" is not standard English for metric decreases. You can say "decreased by two-thirds", "fell to one-third of its original value", or "a 3× improvement in error rate." The calculation in option C is also worth noting: going from 9% to 3% is a reduction to 1/3 of the original, which could be expressed as "fell by two-thirds" or "a 3× improvement in error rate." "Fell 3×" is non-standard. Options A, B, and D are all correctly expressed.
10 / 10
A performance announcement reads: "We achieved a 40% _____ in memory usage — from 2GB to 1.2GB."
Which word correctly completes the improvement statement?
Which word correctly completes the improvement statement?
Reduction is correct. "A 40% reduction in memory usage" is the standard phrasing for a decrease in a resource metric. The calculation confirms: (2GB - 1.2GB) / 2GB = 40%. "Decrease" would require "a 40% decrease in memory usage" — correct but less common in performance reporting. "Increase" and "improvement" are wrong because they suggest memory usage went up, but memory reduction is an improvement. Note: "reduction" is preferred when the decrease is desirable; "decrease" is neutral.