Stance Nouns with That-Clauses in Technical Writing
5 exercises — using stance nouns with appositive that-clauses to hedge or assert claims precisely in design docs and code reviews.
Key patterns:
concern/assumption/possibility + that — no preposition before the content clause
content-clause that cannot be replaced by "which", unlike relative "that"
choose the stance noun to match your confidence level: chance/possibility (hedged) vs fact/proof (asserted)
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Which sentence correctly uses a stance noun followed by a "that" clause to express the writer's assessment in a design doc?
Stance nouns like concern, assumption, possibility, and risk are typically followed directly by a "that" clause stating the content of the stance: concern that the schema might break.... Option A incorrectly inserts "about" before the clause. Option C uses the relative pronoun "which", which doesn't fit this appositive-style complement structure. Option D awkwardly relocates "about" to the end, which is ungrammatical here.
2 / 5
Choose the sentence that correctly uses the stance noun "assumption" with an appositive that-clause in an RFC:
"Assumption that" is the correct pattern — the noun "assumption" takes an appositive that-clause specifying its content. Options B and D incorrectly insert prepositions ("of", "for") before the clause, which is ungrammatical with this noun-complement structure. Option C uses "which", appropriate for relative clauses referring back to an antecedent, not for stating the content of an abstract noun like "assumption".
3 / 5
A postmortem states: "There is a _____ that this same failure mode could recur in the payments service." Which stance noun best conveys an unresolved, forward-looking risk (not a certainty)?
"Possibility" correctly conveys an unresolved, hypothetical risk about a future recurrence. "Fact" (option A) and "conclusion" (option C) both imply certainty or a settled determination, which contradicts the speculative nature of "could recur". "Evidence" (option D) refers to supporting data for a claim, not the claim of future risk itself, and doesn't fit naturally as "evidence that X could recur" in this stance-marking role as well as "possibility" does.
4 / 5
Which sentence correctly distinguishes a stance noun + that-clause from a relative clause modifying the same noun?
Option B correctly identifies the key ambiguity: in "the claim that the team made", "that" is a relative pronoun standing in for the object of "made" (you could substitute "which"). In "the claim that the fix resolved the issue", "that" introduces a content clause stating what the claim asserts, and cannot be replaced with "which" ("the claim which the fix resolved the issue" is ungrammatical, ruling out option C). This distinction matters because content-clause "that" cannot be omitted or replaced the way relative "that" sometimes can.
5 / 5
A code review comment reads: "There's a _____ that this refactor introduces a subtle off-by-one error." Which stance noun most precisely signals a hedged, tentative observation rather than a strong claim?
"Chance" appropriately hedges the claim, signaling the reviewer is flagging a possibility worth checking rather than asserting a confirmed bug. "Certainty" (option A), "proof" (option C), and "fact" (option D) all imply a confirmed, verified claim, which would overstate what a reviewer typically knows before the code has been tested — using one of these would misrepresent the reviewer's actual epistemic stance.