This assignment tasks us with finding three lab reports and to analyze them for their similarities and differences in format. These will be held in comparison to the standard format that we will use for lab reports in the future. In addition to stating the differences, explain why is the approach used the best way to convey what is asked of them or are their mistakes caused by human error. Present the information in a rhetorical analysis, backed by information found from the three individual labs. Break down each section of the labs and asses their effectiveness.
Lab Report Comparison Analysis
Comparing three sample lab reports to understand their formatting and real-world applications
Luis Cortazar
City College of New York (CUNY)
Writing for Engineers – Prof. Clark
Lab Reports used
Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies (1)
Ontogenetic Color Change and Mating Cues in Largus californicus (2)
The Optimal Foraging Theory: Food Selection in Beavers Based on Tree Species, Size, and Distance (3)
Cover and Title page
While all three labs include a descriptive title page, only the first lab (Perception of different sugars by blowflies) has a cover page in the proper format. This is likely because it is a pdf file while the other examples are on a website and they were structured to conserve space.
Abstracts
Abstracts in lab reports can be organized into two distinct categories: descriptive and informative. All three labs follow the guidelines for a descriptive lab report. Neither of them reveals any data found during their experiment and introduce their respective subject to an audience that may not be aware of what they are testing. Rather than provide the results they describe how their experiments went and mention the topics covered. Conclusions and results are not present in this section but are in their respective sections in the discussion and results section. Lab (3) is the only lab analyzed to have a Conclusion stated and labeled as such at the end of the report.
Indexes
The indexes, containing all data and observations found during their respective experiments are located at the end of each respective Lab. While neither Lab has an established table of contents, they are all structured in a standard linear form, making the sections easy to identify. Each data set is created uniquely for each lab and their requirements. Lab 1 has a table and line graph with the several types of sugars tested and the number of flies responding to them as well as a figure of the chemical structures of the sugars. Lab 2 has one table and two graphs to test the mating habits of the male California Bordered Plant Bug based on their color and sexual maturation. Due to the complexity of the experiment the data is thoroughly described to get the reader to understand. However, it is not handled properly, the data presented comes off as sloppy and confusing. A change in structure, boldness or font would have made it easier to understand. Lab 3’s data is presented entirely in bar graphs; the experiment was based on the beaver’s eating habits. The graphs are all individually colored and labeled to make itself distinct from the rest of the lab report. Labs 1 and 3 are good examples of how to present data.
Summary
None of the labs contain a summary, but the evaluation of the results including answers to questions can be found in the discussion section of each lab.
Introduction
All three labs follow the requirements of a proper introduction but to varying degrees of success. Lab 1 provides background information on the theory being tested and uses the findings of researchers in the field to support the claim. This makes Lab 1 and the people who worked on it a credible source, however, it lacks in professionalism. The introduction waivers from first to the third person and makes the person who wrote it like the sole worker on the experiment, even though lab partners are present. This could be because even though it was a group assignment, each lab report must have been an individual endeavor. Lab 2 provides a lot of background information on the theory of insect sexual maturity and mating habits but does not get to the point efficiently. The reader becomes lost in a sea of information, even though it is all correct it is not well formatted. This is in sharp contrast to the description of the rest of the report that is more concise and efficient. It is not to say that this report is not a credible source, it is, however it is not aesthetically/ visually pleasing. Lab 3 is the best organized in this section, breaking apart the background information, theory, report description, and procedure. Each has their own paragraph in the introduction to get the most and effective insight into the feeding habits of beavers based on tree species, distance from home and circumference of a log. Lab 3 also makes references to credible sources in the same manner that the first two labs do. In essence that is what all three have accomplished best.
Procedures
The methods and procedure sections of all three labs are all handled differently in relation to the data that was being collected. Lab 1 was very simple but did not have to assess that much data either. This is one of Lab 2’s stronger sections. Because of the complexity of the data the experiment needed to handle, this section was very descriptive in the data that was assessed. Everything was organized chronologically and emphasized key factors of the experiment. This makes Lab 2’s procedure section airtight and effective in listing the steps and methods taken. Lab 3 serves as a middle ground between Labs 1 and 2. The amount of data needing to be assessed and the zone in which the observations were conducted were all stated clearly and presented in an understandable manner.
Results
The result sections in each Lab are all handled consistently well. Each refers to their own dataset/ figure where appropriate. Containing the raw data obtained and describing them in paragraph form in an organized and professional manner.
Discussion
In Lab 1 the discussion section can be subdivided into two sections, one describing the observations in relation to the writer’s theories and the other in observations in relation to the research of other credible sources. The writer discusses the unexpected results with logic and reasoning that does not throw off the subject of the experiment. Although some of the research is present in previous lab sections, the in-depth analysis of these topics is strongly rooted in this section. The discussion section is strong, but the information should have been explored in depth in the introduction. Lab 2’s discussion section does what Lab lacks. Having already established the information it makes it easier to comprehend what the data says about the experiment including unexpected results. Even though the results may suggest the presence of pheromones as having more of an effect than the color of the insects, the theory is not discredited. Lab 3 addresses the findings discovered by the research group, which supports their theory but also makes a point to state human errors as part of the large student team. Coming forward with this information makes this experiment more reputable than if it hadn’t.
References
All references are presented appropriately and are used properly when introducing a new concept, theory or finding. The three labs also have their own work cited section.
Appendix
None of the labs had an appendix, nor did it seem necessary for the flow of their work.
Calculations
The calculations in each experiment appear to have been done accurately and are best reflected in their data and information sections. Any statement of human error adds to their credibility.
Writing Skills and Formatting
Lab 1 is the best example of a properly structured lab, with the presence of a cover page and header. Labs 2 and 3 structure their sections properly but lack some of the key features necessary to make them more professional.
Email us at commonshelpsite@gmail.com so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:
