Tasfia Rahman

City College of New York

Writing for Engineering, ENG 21007

Julianne Davidow 

03/25/20222 

Lab Reports Analysis

Writing of any kind demands a quality structure that presents the information precisely and in an easily understandable manner. Lab reports, particularly, must observe the general guidelines because the information has a higher possibility of losing meaning in case of poor arrangement compared to other reports. This rhetorical analysis focuses on biological sciences lab reports. The first lab report is Sikkema et al.’s “Photocatalytic Concrete Pavements: Laboratory Investigation of NO Oxidation Rate Under Varied Environmental Conditions.” The second is Hamilton et al.’s “Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies.” Most lab reports conform to the eight-step writing format: title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. There are, however, minor discrepancies arising from customization, perhaps due to preference or regulatory requirements.

Element 1: Title. The first part of a lab report should be a comprehensive and informative topic. Both the reports have informative titles. Sikkema et al. (2015) indicates “Photocatalytic Concrete Pavements: Laboratory Investigation of NO Oxidation Rate Under Varied Environmental Conditions.” Hamilton et al. (2009), on the other hand, titles his report as “Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies.” Markel and Selber (2018) suggest that quality titles are specific and therefore longer. In this case, Hamilton et al.’s title is shorter and thus becomes less effective compared to Sikkema et al.’s.

Element 2: Abstract. A quality report presents the readers with a summary of the entire report and its components through an abstract. Both reports have quality abstracts since they illustrate what readers can expect in the lab reports by stating the study’s purpose. However, they adopt different approaches to summary creation. Hamilton et al.’s abstract is more of an informative abstract, with simple vocabulary and information on the results and conclusions. On the other hand, Sikkema et 3 

al.’s abstract does not expressly indicate the study’s findings but rather gives an overview of the topics alongside hints to the conclusion. As Markel and Selber (2018) suggest, informative abstracts are preferable to descriptive ones; therefore, Hamilton et al.’s abstract is superior.

Element 3: Introduction. A target audience depends on the introduction to internalize a research’s significance and necessity. Both Sikkema et al. and Hamilton et al. have comprehensive introductions where they give the relevant background information. The reports’ introductions contain concise reviews on past research, just like Markel and Selber (2018) recommend. Hamilton et al. (2009) indicates the experiment and the scientist’s expectations which I think is practical. The researcher also provides personal opinions, which adds more credibility and significance. However, both introductions are sufficient since they achieve their purpose of easing the audience through a detailed background.

Element 4: Materials and Methods. Readers need the materials and methods section to ascertain the credibility of an experiment’s results based on the appropriateness of the approach to the research questions. There are a few discrepancies in the methods and materials descriptions in this sector. While Hamilton et al. (2009) provides a vivid description of the processes, his report omits some vital materials. Sikkema et al. (2015), on the other hand, is very thorough. Hamilton et al.’s description is simple and does not detail how they handled the flies specifically. The report only states the achievements and not the tools or handling procedures. 

On the other hand, Sikkema et al.’s materials and methods section contain many details on the equipment such as UV lights, plexiglass, PMMA spacers, motor slab, and many others. The researcher provides a comprehensive operational procedure, control measures, and varying conditions. The description also has pictures of the actual equipment and process diagrams. In his description, Sikkema et al. (2015) also uses the passive voice while Hamilton et al. uses an active 4 

voice. Markel and Selber (2018) indicate that the description should be vivid enough. Other researchers should be able to do the same experiments using the same methods and equipment; this I can attest is true in Sikkema et al.’s lab report. Therefore, Sikkema et al.’s lab report is superior under element four.

Element 5: Results. An exemplary representation of a study’s results makes a researcher’s work easier when persuading the audience using the said evidence. Hamilton et al.’s lab report has precise results with supporting figures and tables. If it were not a comparison, the result section of Hamilton et al.’s report would be sufficient and convincing enough for me as an audience. However, I have to side with Sikkema et al.’s piece because of the detailing. Markel and Selber (2018) explain that researchers could customize their reports, especially in the results section. Sikemma (2015) integrates his results and discussions sections. I think more practical that way since it would be more convincing if somebody gave a statement and supported it with evidence. On the other hand, stating the evidence first and later calling upon it during a discussion may be practical but repetitive.

Element 6: Discussion. At this point, scientists can integrate their findings with a research’s primary objectives. The discussion sessions of both lab reports seem credible and, therefore, equally effective. Despite Sikkema et al.’s integration of results and discussion, Hamilton et al.’s discussion is also very convincing. Markel and Selber (2018) explain that stating a failed experiment controversially augments a report’s credibility. Hamilton et al. does just that by indicating the two little experiments and their findings. He also states the hypothesis that lacked support from the experiment. Sikkema et al.’s discussion is critical as he directly integrates evidence into the hypothesis. The results, alongside figures and diagrams, support the hypothesis and research objectives considerably. Therefore, the two reports are at a stalemate.5 

Element 7: Conclusions. The section enables researchers to wrap up their study by summarizing their main points and giving any final thoughts or recommendations for future studies. Markel and Selber (2018) define a proper conclusion as concise, reviews the study’s purpose or hypothesis and gives a final overview of the findings and their implications. Hamilton et al.’s lab report lacks a conclusion which leaves Sikkema et al. without competition. Despite incorporating the conclusion, Sikkema et al.’s is slightly over-detailed. I think conclusions are the sectors where citations are unnecessary. It is a wrap-up on the study’s findings and discussions, not further background and evidence for credibility. Including further details in this section compromises the precision. However, the researcher includes a final paragraph under this section that generally addresses the experiment’s concern. Therefore, for this element, Sikkema et al.’s lab report is prominent.

Element 8: References. This final section enables the researchers to enhance the credibility of their information. Through referencing, they can provide links to other scholarly work cited in their paper. The format is dependent on supervision, instruction, or commonly acceptable formats in the field. Both lab reports included reference lists. However, Sikkema et al.’s reference list is more professional as it adheres to APA guidelines, unlike Hamilton et al.’s, whose format is hard to tell.

Conclusion

Regardless of any form of customization a researcher may prefer when preparing lab reports, a seamless flow of information is essential. The generally accepted format for report preparation is a good foundation that researchers should consider. It makes the report preparation more efficient, accurate and easier. The lab reports in this rhetorical analysis are both credible and sufficient information-wise. The superiority discrepancy only arises from their level of adherence to technical writing guidelines on lab reports. Overall, I would consider the formats element in my reports.6 7 

Annotated Bibliography

Sikkema, J. K., Ong, S. K., & Alleman, J. E. (2015). Photocatalytic concrete pavements: Laboratory investigation of NO oxidation rate under varied environmental conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 100, 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.005

Sikkema et al. (2015) record the events in an experiment in this lab report as they attempt to prove that concrete pavements with TiO2 can help in the management of air pollution. The research falls under the bio-chemistry field. The paper is credible since it provides links to the scientist’s biographies and other resources. I chose it because of its use of science for environmental benefit.

Hamilton, A., Flynn, S., & Alexander, A. (2009). Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies. https://phdessay.com/perception-of-different-sugars-by-blowflies/

Hamilton et al. (2009) is a biological research experiment that aimed to examine blowflies’ ability to taste disaccharide and monosaccharide. The paper was particularly interesting as it sought to prove that flies are biologically adapted to fend for themselves. It was fascinating to understand how they survive without complex biological components like humans.

Reference

Markel, M. H., & Selber, S. A. (2018). Technical communication. In Open WorldCat. https://www.worldcat.org/title/technical-communication/oclc/1008770004