Practise phrases for negotiating scope: trading features for time, defining a minimum viable cut, and protecting quality under pressure.
0 / 10 completed
1 / 10
Which sentence offers a clear scope-for-time trade?
Proposing a specific deferral in exchange for meeting the date gives the stakeholder a concrete trade-off to weigh.
2 / 10
The smallest set of functionality that still delivers value is the ___.
Naming a minimum viable scope focuses the negotiation on what truly must ship versus what is nice-to-have.
3 / 10
Which phrase pushes back on scope creep diplomatically?
Acknowledging the idea while parking it for later protects the timeline without dismissing the stakeholder.
4 / 10
Which statement protects quality while negotiating scope?
Drawing a line around testing makes clear that scope can flex but quality safeguards should not, framed as a recommendation.
5 / 10
To make priorities explicit before cutting, you ask:
Forcing a ranked choice surfaces the true priorities so the cut reflects business value, not guesswork.
6 / 10
Sarah: 'Okay, let's implement the user authentication flow with OAuth2 support. It'll take about 3 days.'
Mark: 'That sounds good. Can we also add rate limiting and two-factor authentication?'
Which sentence best describes Mark's approach to scope negotiation?
Mark's request represents scope creep – adding functionality beyond the initially agreed-upon requirements. Option B correctly identifies this as an appropriate action, acknowledging the expansion but not immediately rejecting it. Options A and C are too extreme, while option D highlights a lack of clarity which is often a precursor to scope creep.
7 / 10
During a code review for a new payment processing API endpoint, your colleague, David, suggests adding support for accepting cryptocurrency. You recognize this would significantly increase complexity and development time.
Which phrase is most effective for politely declining David's suggestion while still acknowledging his idea?
Option 1 demonstrates a diplomatic approach by acknowledging David's suggestion without immediately committing to its implementation. It redirects the focus back to the original scope – the core payment flow. Options A and C are overly enthusiastic or vague, while option B directly dismisses the idea without consideration.
8 / 10
You're writing a PR description for a new feature that allows users to upload profile images. The scope is defined as 'support JPEG and PNG formats up to 2MB.'
Which statement best protects quality while negotiating the scope?
Option 1 clearly defines the scope – specifying supported formats and file size limits. This is crucial for managing expectations and preventing future scope creep. Options A and C are too broad, while option D suggests a significantly reduced feature set, potentially impacting user experience.
9 / 10
Emily: 'We need to prioritize the new reporting dashboard. It's critical for tracking key metrics and will drive strategic decisions.'
In a standup update, what question would you ask to ensure alignment before proceeding with development?
Option 1 focuses on clarifying the *why* behind the feature. Understanding the specific business questions Emily wants to answer is paramount before committing to development. This ensures that the effort is directed towards delivering genuine value and addresses the core need – preventing wasted time building something irrelevant.
10 / 10
You're receiving an API response indicating a '429 Too Many Requests' error. The documentation states that rate limiting is in place to prevent abuse.
Which statement best describes the situation regarding scope negotiation?
The '429 Too Many Requests' error indicates that the client (your code) is exceeding the rate limits defined by the API. Option 2 correctly identifies that the client-side code needs to be adjusted to adhere to these constraints – a key aspect of scope negotiation and managing API usage. Options A, B and C misinterpret the cause of the error.
What will I practise in "Feature Scope Negotiation Language"?
This module focuses on Negotiation English — real workplace phrasing you'll use on the job. It contains 10 scenario-based multiple-choice questions with instant feedback.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account or sign-up required.
How many questions does this exercise have?
This module includes 10 questions. Each one gives an immediate right/wrong result plus a full explanation of the correct phrasing.
What happens if I answer a question incorrectly?
You'll see the correct answer highlighted straight away, along with a plain-English explanation of why it's right and why the other options don't fit — mistakes are part of the learning here.
Can I retry the exercise if I want a better score?
Yes — use the 'Try again' button on the results screen to reset your score and go through the questions again. There's no limit on attempts.
Who is this Negotiation English exercise for?
It's aimed at IT professionals with working English who want to sound more natural and precise around negotiation english — useful whether you're preparing for real conversations at work or just building confidence with the vocabulary.
Do I need an account to track my progress?
No account is needed. Your progress through the exercise is tracked locally in your browser for the current session, and you can replay the module at any time.
How is this different from reading a blog article?
This exercise is an interactive drill that tests and reinforces specific phrasing through multiple-choice questions with instant feedback, while blog articles explain concepts and vocabulary in prose. The two work well together.
Where can I find more Negotiation English exercises?
See the Negotiation English hub for more modules like this one, or browse the full Exercises page for other IT-English topics.
Can I complete this exercise on my phone?
Yes — every exercise on CoderSlingo is fully responsive and works on phones and tablets, so you can practise anywhere.