5 exercises — practise cutting redundant modifiers and word pairs from technical writing.
0 / 18 completed
1 / 18
Which sentence avoids redundant wording when describing a system change?
"We will eliminate the deprecated endpoint by Q3" is correct: "eliminate" already means to remove completely, so no intensifying modifier is needed, making this the most concise, redundancy-free version. Option A pairs "completely" with "entirely", both of which restate the same idea already contained in "eliminate" — a classic pleonasm. Option B stacks two synonymous intensifiers, "completely and totally", which adds words without adding meaning. Option D uses two near-synonymous verbs, "eliminate and remove", where the second is redundant given the first.
2 / 18
Which sentence correctly removes the redundant pairing in a status update?
"The outcome of the load test was a 40% latency reduction" is correct: "outcome" alone conveys the result of the test without needing extra qualifiers. Option A pairs "final" with "outcome", which is redundant since an outcome is inherently the concluding result of a process. Option B compounds the redundancy further by combining "final" and "end result", two phrases that both mean the same concluding result. Option D adds "absolutely" as an unnecessary intensifier on top of the already-redundant "final outcome".
3 / 18
Which sentence avoids a tautological time expression when scheduling a maintenance window?
"Scheduled for 2 AM on Saturday" is correct: "AM" already specifies morning, so no further clarification is needed. Option A adds "in the morning" after "2 AM", restating information the abbreviation already conveys. Option C similarly adds the redundant "morning time" after "2 AM". Option D wraps the time in an unnecessarily wordy phrase, "the early morning hour of", which again duplicates what "AM" already communicates.
4 / 18
Which sentence correctly avoids redundant modifiers when describing a code review requirement?
"Every pull request must pass CI before merging" is correct: "every" alone already expresses that the rule applies without exception to each item, so no additional emphasis is needed. Option A adds "single" after "every", a common redundant intensifier that restates the exhaustiveness "every" already implies. Option C uses the doubled phrase "each and every", pairing two near-synonymous quantifiers. Option D restates the same idea twice within one sentence, first with "all" and then again with the appended "each one".
5 / 18
A style guide flags redundant phrasing in API documentation. Choose the revision that removes the redundancy without changing the meaning.
"The API returns null if no records are found" is the correct, precise revision: "null" and "blank" describe overlapping, often identical, states in this context, so listing both as alternatives is redundant, and the shorter version removes the ambiguity along with the redundancy. Option B introduces a new redundant intensifier, "completely null", since "null" is already an absolute state with no degrees. Option C keeps the original redundancy and adds a further redundant pairing, "blank empty". Option D changes "or" to "and", which is grammatically odd (a single value cannot simultaneously be two different states) and still retains the core redundancy.
6 / 18
John from the Infrastructure team sent this Slack message: 'We're rolling back the database migration due to a conflict. The rollback is causing downtime.' Which revision best avoids redundancy while still conveying the critical information?
The original message repeats 'downtime' after stating the cause. Option 1 avoids this repetition by clearly linking the rollback and the resulting downtime. Options B and C both unnecessarily rephrase the same core information, while option D is too informal for a formal update. This exercise focuses on streamlining technical updates.
7 / 18
David is writing a PR description for a new API endpoint: 'The API returns data in JSON format and includes the response time.' Which option best refines this text to avoid redundancy?
The original phrasing repeats 'response time'. Option 1 concisely states that the API returns data *with* a specified response time. Options B and C are unnecessarily complex, while option D introduces extraneous information about measurement—the core point is simply including the response time as part of the JSON data.
8 / 18
Ben is drafting API documentation for a new function: 'The endpoint accepts JSON data with a 'user_id' field and returns the user's profile information.' Which revision best removes redundancy in this description?
Both 'JSON data' and 'user profile' are repeated. Option 1 refines the description by stating that it returns *the corresponding* user profile, which is clearer and more concise. Options B and C use overly complex phrasing, while option D is slightly informal for API documentation.
9 / 18
John from the Infrastructure team sent this Slack message: 'We're rolling back the database migration due to a conflict. The rollback is causing downtime.' Which revision best avoids redundancy while still conveying the critical information?
The original message repeats 'downtime' after stating the cause. Option 1 avoids this repetition by clearly linking the rollback and the resulting downtime. Options B and C both unnecessarily rephrase the same core information, while option D is too informal for a formal update. This exercise focuses on streamlining technical updates.
10 / 18
David is writing a PR description for a new API endpoint: 'The API returns data in JSON format and includes the response time.' Which option best refines this text to avoid redundancy?
The original phrasing repeats 'response time'. Option 1 concisely states that the API returns data *with* a specified response time. Options B and C are unnecessarily complex, while option D introduces extraneous information about measurement—the core point is simply including the response time as part of the JSON data.
11 / 18
Ben is drafting API documentation for a new function: 'The endpoint accepts JSON data with a 'user_id' field and returns the user's profile information.' Which revision best removes redundancy in this description?
Both 'JSON data' and 'user profile' are repeated. Option 1 refines the description by stating that it returns *the corresponding* user profile, which is clearer and more concise. Options B and C use overly complex phrasing, while option D is slightly informal for API documentation.
12 / 18
John from the Infrastructure team sent this Slack message: 'We're rolling back the database migration due to a conflict. The rollback is causing downtime.' Which revision best avoids redundancy while still conveying the critical information?
The original message repeats 'downtime' after stating the cause. Option 1 avoids this repetition by clearly linking the rollback and the resulting downtime. Options B and C both unnecessarily rephrase the same core information, while option D is too informal for a formal update. This exercise focuses on streamlining technical updates.
13 / 18
David is writing a PR description for a new API endpoint: 'The API returns data in JSON format and includes the response time.' Which option best refines this text to avoid redundancy?
The original phrasing repeats 'response time'. Option 1 concisely states that the API returns data *with* a specified response time. Options B and C are unnecessarily complex, while option D introduces extraneous information about measurement—the core point is simply including the response time as part of the JSON data.
14 / 18
Ben is drafting API documentation for a new function: 'The endpoint accepts JSON data with a 'user_id' field and returns the user's profile information.' Which revision best removes redundancy in this description?
Both 'JSON data' and 'user profile' are repeated. Option 1 refines the description by stating that it returns *the corresponding* user profile, which is clearer and more concise. Options B and C use overly complex phrasing, while option D is slightly informal for API documentation.
15 / 18
Sarah, a senior developer on the Phoenix team, is writing a comment for a code review. She's reviewing a function that handles user authentication. Which sentence best demonstrates redundancy avoidance in this context?
Option 1 avoids redundancy by stating 'securely validates' once. The phrase 'ensures access' is implied when validating credentials. Options B, C, and D all repeat the same core actions – authentication and validation – creating unnecessary repetition. Redundancy obscures clarity; a concise statement is more effective.
16 / 18
Alex from the DevOps team sent this Slack message: 'The script uses a POST request to the API endpoint and returns a JSON response. The response contains the data.' Which revision best avoids redundancy while still conveying the information effectively?
Redundancy here lies in repeatedly stating 'JSON response'. The original message states that the `POST` request *results* in a JSON response. Option A streamlines this by directly stating that the POST request *returns* it. Options B and C simply rephrase the same core idea, while option D adds unnecessary detail about 'requested data'.
17 / 18
During a standup meeting, Maria explains that her team is 'reverting the changes to the production database due to a conflict.' Which revision best refines this phrasing to avoid redundancy?
The original statement uses 'reverting' and 'changes' together, which is redundant. 'Rolling back' is more concise and commonly used in this context. Options A and D are overly verbose, and option B simply restates the core issue without streamlining the language.
18 / 18
David is writing a PR description for a new microservice. He wants to clearly state the service's purpose: 'This service handles user authentication requests and returns JSON data.' Which revision best avoids redundancy while maintaining clarity? (Note: Authentication *is* part of handling requests.)
The original sentence repeats the concept of 'handles' and 'returning'. Option 2 streamlines this by simply stating what the service *does*. It avoids unnecessary repetition and uses more concise phrasing typical of technical documentation. Options A & C are redundant, and option D is grammatically awkward.
What will I practise in "Redundancy Avoidance in Technical English — IT Grammar Exercise"?
Practise identifying and eliminating pleonasms, tautologies, and redundant word pairs in technical documentation and status updates.
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 18 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.