5 exercises — practise using "which" to comment on a whole preceding clause when describing outcomes and consequences.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Choose the sentence that correctly uses a sentential relative clause to comment on the whole preceding statement.
"The deployment failed at 2am, which surprised no one given the untested config" is correct: the comma before "which" signals a non-restrictive clause whose antecedent is the whole event "the deployment failed at 2am", not just "2am" or "deployment". Option B wrongly uses "that", which cannot introduce a non-restrictive clause. Option C turns "which" into a restrictive modifier of "deployment", changing the meaning to describe which deployment, not commenting on the failure. Option D inserts "config" after "which", producing an ungrammatical structure.
2 / 5
Which sentence uses a sentential relative clause correctly to comment on an entire situation?
"The team merged the hotfix without a code review, which later caused a regression" is correct: "which" refers back to the entire clause "the team merged the hotfix without a code review", explaining its consequence. Option B incorrectly uses "what" as a relative pronoun, which is not standard in this structure. Option C misplaces "which" so it appears to modify "code review" alone, obscuring the intended whole-clause reference. Option D uses "it" with no comma-linked subordination, creating a run-on sentence instead of a relative clause.
3 / 5
Select the sentence where the sentential relative clause is punctuated and used correctly.
"The service auto-scaled during the traffic spike, which kept latency under 200ms" is correct: the comma marks "which kept latency under 200ms" as a comment on the whole preceding event, the auto-scaling during the spike. Option B omits the comma, which makes the clause read as restrictively modifying "the traffic spike", implying only some spikes kept latency low. Option C awkwardly inserts a comma before "auto-scaled", breaking the main clause and leaving "which" dangling without a clear structural link. Option D uses "that", which is ungrammatical for a non-restrictive, comma-separated relative clause.
4 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses a sentential relative clause to summarize a whole prior statement, not a single noun?
"The migration script dropped the wrong table, which the DBA immediately rolled back" is correct: "which" here can be read as referring to the entire event of the wrong table being dropped, and "the DBA immediately rolled back" is the consequence. Option B changes "which" into a clause that describes the table itself (its name), a noun-modifying relative clause, not a sentential one, so it answers a different question than the one asked. Option C incorrectly uses "that" after a comma, which is not permitted for non-restrictive relative clauses. Option D scrambles the word order, producing an ungrammatical sentence.
5 / 5
Choose the sentence that correctly uses a sentential relative clause referring to the entire preceding action.
"The engineer force-pushed to main, which several teammates found alarming" is correct: "which" refers to the whole act of force-pushing to main, and the comma correctly separates the main clause from the commenting relative clause. Option B inserts "branch" after "which", changing the intended whole-clause reference into an incomplete, ungrammatical noun phrase. Option C uses "who", which shifts the relative clause to modify "the engineer" as a person rather than commenting on the action, altering the meaning. Option D uses a semicolon before "which", but a sentential relative clause must be joined with a comma, not a semicolon, since it is subordinate, not an independent clause.