Abstract:
In this lab report I compared and contract two lab reports. One lab report was writing from a college student named Laura Gomez. She tested the reaction of load beam. The other lab report was writing by John Doe.
Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Report
Not only does a lab report conduct a scientific research but it is the best way to persuade people that something is important or creditable. Before conducting an experiment, one must formulate a hypothesis about a particular event or behavior. Next you conduct the experiment and collect data. Finally, you write the lab report, the lab report is the perfect time to tell the reader why this topic is important, prove if your date does or does not support your hypothesis, explore theoretical explanations and most importantly it explains how to replicate the experiment. It is crucial that your audience can replicate your experiment and have the same finding because it makes your work creditable. This is all shown in John Doe’s and Laura Gomez’s lab report.
A lab report consists of nine main parts a title, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, acknowledgments, reference and appendixes. John Doe roughly meets six out of the 9 main parts. For example, his title is Thevenin Equivalence, while this does tell the reader what the lab report will revolve around, it lacks to inform the reader what about Thevenin Equivalence. There is no real correct structure on how to write a report, everyone usually follows the same order, but John Doe does not. Doe structures his lab report by first stating his title then objective, equipment list, relevant theory/background information, experimental data/analysis, conclusion, list of attachments and references. This wouldn’t be a problem if the report went smoothly but it doesn’t.
Stating the objective of his experiment was a good way to start because the audience goes into reading the rest of the report with the purpose behind this lab in the back of their head. However, Doe jumps to the equipment without giving any background information on the topic, that is like going to the supermarket without knowing what you’re going to make. This can be an issue due to the fact that Doe’s audience can range from people with little knowledge of the topic to electrical and computer engineers meaning that a group of people won’t know the equipment or know why those equipment’s are needed till they read the background information on it.
John Doe’s Relevant Theory/Background Information section is a mix of an abstract, introduction and method section. The abstract section is supposed to be where the author summarizes the entire report including a sentence summary of each section of the report. However, Doe fails to do so, he only summarizes the report as a whole by saying “the series source resistance of the Thevenin equivalent circuit is the resistance seen looking into the terminals of the complex circuit at the load” (Doe, 1). The introduction is where the question being asked, and the author’s hypothesis is supposed to be while providing the audience with some background of the subject. Doe does a great job providing the audience with background information on the topic but if it wasn’t for him stating his objective, I would not be aware of the purpose for conducting this experiment. Doe goes into talking about the method by saying “Many methods exist for finding the Thevenin equivalent circuit. One method is as follows: …” (Doe, 1). This is a weak technique to use because it is unclear if that’s the method he is using or if he is just stating the method as an example of ways “to compare voltage, current and power measurements of a complex network to the values measured from the Thevenin equivalent version of the same circuit” (Doe, 1).
In addition to Doe combining his abstract, introduction and method section, he also combines his results with his discussion section. This isn’t a big issue because its cohesive, the main point of these two sections is to talk about the data found. Results is where you put the graphs and tables to display your finding neatly and make it easier to see patterns. Doe does a nice job doing that, he states all his units, gives all the graphs and tables a title, he shows his calculations and he provides a key that’s color coded for the graph to make it easier to understand. When discussing the data found he states all the possible error that could have affected his outcomes. For example, he talks about the mistake made in bookkeeping, the load resistance was 100 in the bridge circuit and the load resistance was 300 for the Thevenin’s equivalent circuit (Doe, 3). Not only does this explain why his data is off, but it also explains to the next person who replicates this experiment why their data doesn’t match, and still makes his work creditable.
Doe’s conclusion falls flat from stating the importance of this lab, why is this relevant? Why does this matter? Why should someone reconduct this experiment? What am I supposed to do with all this new information? How can I apply it to the outside world? All he does is summarize the main points of the lab. John Doe did not include an acknowledgment section since in his cover page he added that Jane Doe was his lab partner meaning she assisted him. Overall if I had to give this lab report a grade out of ten, I would give him a six, mostly because I don’t understand why his lab was important.
Laura Gomez follows a different structure than John Doe does, she meets eight out of ten requirements of the lab report. She starts with her title, “Experiment 6: End Reactions of a loaded Beam”, this is a proper title due to the fact that it states the topic; “loaded beam” and what about the load beam are we observing, “end reactions”. Gomez’s second page is an index, making it easier for the audience if they’re looking for a particular section, however, it is not needed. She breaks down everything into sections, starting with the abstract. In her abstract she mentions the importance of this lab report while relating it to the real world. In addition, she gives a one sentence summary of the method used and the results found. Gomez’s report has a better start than John Doe does considering she smoothly eases the reader into the lab report, she explains what this research is about, why it is important and what to expect.
Laura Gomez hits all the key aspects of a lab report; she dedicates her report to persuading the reader on why we focus on the end reactions of a loaded beam and she articulates how to conduct this lab straightforwardly. Unfortunately, just like John Doe, Gomez fails to include an acknowledgment section and an appendix. John Doe at least states he had a lab partner, Gomez does not add anyone. However, Gomez is a college student conducting a lab for the class, so it is understandable that she has no acknowledgments. As well as her not having an appendix section since the instructor of the class provides the students with all the information needed for the report.
Overall, John Doe and Laura Gomez both wrote a well-developed lab report providing the audience with greatly researched background information on the topic. Each writing had different aspects that made their lab report better than the other. For example, John Doe’s use of visuals made it easier to understand the results and what to expect when conducting the experiment. If I were to reconduct his lab, the visual that shows all the circuits with the charges and labels will help give me reinsurance that I am doing the right thing. With Laura Gomez’s lab report the audience does not have that reinsurance, all you have to do is follow the methods and hope your outcome is similar to hers by comparing your data table. Also, Doe provides the reader with the calculations, he shows what numbers to plug in where and how he got to his answers, all Gomez does is give the audience the equations needed. But just because Doe adds visuals doesn’t make his lab report better, if I had to rate Gomez’s lab report out of ten, I would give her a seven, one more point than Doe because her report is more consistent. Both these writers show that while conducting a scientific research is important the research means nothing if the lab report written isn’t adequate.
