An incident report section reads: "The memory leak _____ caused the service restart." The engineering team is not 100% certain yet. Which hedged version is most appropriate?
"Appears to have + past participle" is the standard hedging structure for expressing high-but-not-certain confidence in technical communication.
Hedging spectrum (weakest → strongest hedge): • "The memory leak caused the restart." — zero hedge, asserts certainty you don't have • "The memory leak appears to have caused the restart." — appropriate: high confidence, acknowledges uncertainty • "The memory leak may have caused the restart." — medium confidence • "The memory leak might have contributed to the restart." — lower confidence
Why it matters: In technical reports, over-stating certainty (Option A) leads to blame, blocks further investigation, and can cause fixes to wrong root causes. Over-hedging (Option C — stacking "might possibly perhaps") sounds unprofessional and signals lack of analytical rigour. Option D is an abdication of analysis responsibility.
Common "appears to" structures: • "The bottleneck appears to originate in the database layer." • "The configuration change appears to have triggered the alert storm." • "The root cause appears to be insufficient connection pool sizing."
2 / 15
A tech lead is reviewing metrics after a deployment. Which sentence uses modal hedging most accurately to convey "this is possible but not confirmed"?
Modal verb hedging scale for probability:
| Modal | Probability | Typical use | |---|---|---| | must be | ~90–95% | Near-certain inference: "It must be a config issue — nothing else changed" | | will be | ~85%+ | High-confidence prediction (not usually for probability hedging) | | should be | ~75% | Expectation based on normal behaviour | | could / may be | ~40–60% | Possible but not confirmed | | might be | ~25–40% | Lower plausibility |
For "possible but not confirmed" — could be or may be are correct.
Options A and D both assert certainty (no hedge). Option B ("must be") signals near-certain inference, which is stronger than the scenario requires. Only Option C provides the appropriate "possible but not confirmed" hedge.
Pattern in engineering communication: • Investigation phase: "This could be a network partition or a misconfigured retry policy." • Post-analysis: "The logs suggest the failure may be linked to the upstream certificate rotation." • Confirmed: "The root cause was the misconfigured health check threshold." (no hedge needed once confirmed)
3 / 15
A developer writes a code review comment: "This approach _____ performance issues under high load, based on how the ORM generates queries." Which completion demonstrates correct hedging + attribution?
Hedging verbs: seem / appear / tend / suggest
Hedging verbs soften assertions without weakening the information. "Seems to" and "appears to" are the most natural for code review commentary.
"This approach seems to [verb]..." pattern: • "This approach seems to create a new DB connection per iteration — can we pool these?" • "This function appears to lack input validation for the edge case where X is null." • "The implementation seems to bypass the rate limiter for authenticated users."
Why Option D is weaker: "may potentially" is redundant double-hedging — "may" already implies potential. This is a common over-hedging pattern in non-native writing. Use one hedge at a time.
Why Option B is wrong: "This approach suggests performance issues" is grammatically unusual. "Suggest" with a thing as subject usually precedes a noun phrase or that-clause: "The profiler data suggests a bottleneck" — but the subject here is the approach itself, which doesn't "suggest" something — it appears to cause or seems to introduce it.
Attribution phrase: "based on how the ORM generates queries" = a limiting attribution clause. Combined with a hedging verb, it signals: "I have grounds for this concern, but it needs verification."
4 / 15
A principal engineer is writing a design document. Which sentence best uses limiting hedges to scope a claim appropriately?
Limiting hedges restrict the scope of a claim rather than softening certainty — they specify the conditions under which the claim holds.
Types of limiting phrases: • Domain limiters: "in most cases", "under typical load", "for read-heavy workloads" • Quantity limiters: "in approximately X% of scenarios", "for requests larger than Y bytes" • Condition limiters: "provided that the cache hit rate exceeds 70%", "as long as the TTL is correctly set"
Option B combines: 1. Domain limiter: "In most cases" — scopes the claim 2. Modal hedge: "should" — signals expectation, not certainty 3. Quantified result: "60–80%" — shows analytical rigour rather than vague optimism 4. Scoped target: "frequently accessed resources" — limits what the claim applies to
Why the others fail: • Option A: "will solve all performance problems" — universally overclaimed; never true • Option C: Uses a modal hedge (likely to) but no limiting scope — "performance problems" is too vague • Option D: "We believe" is a weak personal attribution hedge — acceptable informally but in design docs, data-backed limiting hedges demonstrate deeper technical analysis
5 / 15
An SRE writes in a post-incident review: "_____ the alert delay was caused by the metric aggregation pipeline, which may not have been flushing correctly during the traffic surge." Which attribution opener is best?
Attribution hedges anchor a claim to evidence rather than opinion, which strengthens technical credibility while still hedging uncertainty.
Evidence-based attribution openers: • "Based on the available telemetry data, …" — professional, signals data-anchoring • "According to the trace logs, …" — direct attribution to artefact • "The metrics indicate that …" — indirect attribution through the data itself • "Analysis of the alert timeline suggests that …" — combines attribution + hedging verb
Why attribution + modal hedge works so well: "Based on the available telemetry data, the alert delay was caused by the metric aggregation pipeline, which may not have been flushing correctly during the traffic surge."
This construction: 1. Anchors the claim ("based on data, not gut feeling") 2. Uses "may not have been" — the remaining modal hedge signals the causal chain is not yet fully confirmed 3. Is precise and professional enough for an executive audience
What to avoid: • "In our opinion" — turns an engineering analysis into a subjective view; avoid in technical reports • "Obviously" — dismisses the work of investigation and can offend readers who didn't find it obvious • "It is a known fact that" — over-states certainty, legally risky in customer-facing communications, and sounds evasive if challenged
6 / 15
Sarah from QA reports: 'The API response showed a 500 error. We suspect it's related to the new authentication module, but we haven't fully isolated the cause yet.' Which phrasing best reflects Sarah's cautious assessment?
This question tests hedging around uncertainty. Option A is overly assertive, while option B provides absolute certainty which is inappropriate given the context. Option C uses 'might be' and 'pending further investigation,' effectively acknowledging the possibility without making a definitive claim. Option D is too strong for an initial report.
7 / 15
Mark, a Senior Developer, sends a Slack message to the team: 'I'm running some tests on the new data processing pipeline. The results are… interesting. It *could* be scaling effectively under load.' Which of the following best captures Mark's communication style?
This focuses on modal hedging in informal communication. 'Could be' and 'still observing anomalies' demonstrates caution and avoids prematurely concluding the pipeline performs well. Options A and D are overly confident, while option B is too vague to be useful.
8 / 15
David writes a PR description for a code change: 'This refactor improves the efficiency of the database queries. It *may* reduce latency under certain conditions.' Which sentence would be MOST appropriate to add to David's description?
This assesses hedging with attribution. David's original phrasing already incorporates a hedge ('may'). Adding option C further clarifies the limited scope of the improvement – acknowledging that latency reduction isn't guaranteed and is data-dependent. Options A and B are overly assertive.
9 / 15
Emily, a Technical Product Manager, is drafting an API specification update: 'The new endpoint will return a list of products. The response data *may* include fields that are not currently documented.' Which statement best exemplifies Emily's approach to documenting the API?
This tests limiting hedges to scope the API's functionality. 'May' acknowledges that the response structure is not fixed and could change without impacting core functionality. Option A presents an unrealistic guarantee, while option B overstates documentation completeness.
10 / 15
John, an SRE, writes a post-incident review: 'The root cause of the service degradation was identified as network congestion. This could have been exacerbated by recent code deployments.' Which statement best reflects John's cautious assessment?
This examines hedging through attribution and acknowledging potential contributing factors. 'Could have been exacerbated' uses a modal hedge to suggest a possibility without assigning direct blame or stating certainty. Option A is too definitive, while option D prematurely declares resolution.
11 / 15
Sarah from QA reports: 'The API response showed a 500 error. We suspect it's related to the new authentication module, but we haven't fully isolated the cause yet.' Which phrasing best reflects Sarah's cautious assessment?
This question tests hedging around uncertainty. Option A is overly assertive, while option B provides absolute certainty which is inappropriate given the context. Option C uses 'might be' and 'pending further investigation,' effectively acknowledging the possibility without making a definitive claim. Option D is too strong for an initial report.
12 / 15
Mark, a Senior Developer, sends a Slack message to the team: 'I'm running some tests on the new data processing pipeline. The results are… interesting. It *could* be scaling effectively under load.' Which of the following best captures Mark's communication style?
This focuses on modal hedging in informal communication. 'Could be' and 'still observing anomalies' demonstrates caution and avoids prematurely concluding the pipeline performs well. Options A and D are overly confident, while option B is too vague to be useful.
13 / 15
David writes a PR description for a code change: 'This refactor improves the efficiency of the database queries. It *may* reduce latency under certain conditions.' Which sentence would be MOST appropriate to add to David's description?
This assesses hedging with attribution. David's original phrasing already incorporates a hedge ('may'). Adding option C further clarifies the limited scope of the improvement – acknowledging that latency reduction isn't guaranteed and is data-dependent. Options A and B are overly assertive.
14 / 15
Emily, a Technical Product Manager, is drafting an API specification update: 'The new endpoint will return a list of products. The response data *may* include fields that are not currently documented.' Which statement best exemplifies Emily's approach to documenting the API?
This tests limiting hedges to scope the API's functionality. 'May' acknowledges that the response structure is not fixed and could change without impacting core functionality. Option A presents an unrealistic guarantee, while option B overstates documentation completeness.
15 / 15
John, an SRE, writes a post-incident review: 'The root cause of the service degradation was identified as network congestion. This could have been exacerbated by recent code deployments.' Which statement best reflects John's cautious assessment?
This examines hedging through attribution and acknowledging potential contributing factors. 'Could have been exacerbated' uses a modal hedge to suggest a possibility without assigning direct blame or stating certainty. Option A is too definitive, while option D prematurely declares resolution.
What will I practise in "Hedging Language in Technical English — Grammar Exercise"?
Practise professional hedging in engineering communication: modal verbs, hedging verbs, attribution phrases, and limiting expressions in incident reports, code
How many exercises are in this module?
This module has 15 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.