5 exercises — practise reducing 'which/that/who' relative clauses to participial phrases for concise technical documentation.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Which is the best reduced form of "the function that is exported from the module"?
The relative clause "that is exported" is passive (the function receives the action of exporting). When reducing a passive relative clause, drop "that is/which is" and keep the past participle: "exported". The result is a passive participial phrase used as a pre-modifier: "the exported function". Compare: "the function that exports data" (active) → "the function exporting data" (present participle, -ing). Rule: passive relative clause → past participle; active relative clause → present participle (-ing).
2 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses a participial phrase to replace an active relative clause?
To reduce an active relative clause ("that runs"), drop "that" and change the verb to its -ing (present participle) form: "running". The participial phrase "running in the background" now post-modifies "process" — this is a post-positioned reduced clause. Option A ("the run process") uses the past participle, which would mean the process has been run/terminated — wrong meaning. Option C creates an over-hyphenated pre-modifier, which is awkward and non-standard. Option D keeps "that" with the -ing form — incorrect structure.
3 / 5
Which option correctly reduces the relative clause in: "The API response, which contains the user token, must be encrypted"?
The relative clause "which contains the user token" is active (the response actively contains the token), so reduce it using the present participle: "containing". The commas are retained because the original clause was non-restrictive (set off by commas) — the participial phrase is also non-restrictive. Option B uses "contained" (past participle), which implies the token was previously contained but no longer is — wrong meaning. Option C drops one comma — incorrect for non-restrictive phrases. Option D turns it into a pre-modifier, creating an awkward noun stack.
4 / 5
How should "The engineer who manages the infrastructure team approves all deployments" be reduced?
The restrictive relative clause "who manages the infrastructure team" (no commas — essential to identify which engineer) can be reduced: drop "who" and use the present participle "managing". The result: "The engineer managing the infrastructure team approves all deployments." Note: no commas are used because it remains restrictive (it identifies a specific engineer). Option A uses "managed" (past participle, passive meaning — wrong). Option C creates an ungrammatical structure. Option D is wrong — restrictive relative clauses CAN be reduced; it is non-restrictive clauses that are sometimes left unreduced for clarity.
5 / 5
Which relative clause CANNOT be reduced to a participial phrase without creating ambiguity or error?
Option C creates ambiguity: "The developer writing this code left the company" implies the developer is currently writing the code (present participle = ongoing action), but the original past tense "who wrote" refers to a completed, past action. The reduction changes the temporal meaning. The original must be rephrased or kept: "The developer who wrote this code has left the company." Options A, B, and D are all valid reductions: A uses a past participle correctly (passive action); B uses a present participle for an ongoing active role; D uses a present participle (errors that appear/are appearing in the log).