Tamzid Rahman
February 18, 2019
Lab Report Analysis
Writing for Engineers

In the lab report Factors controlling sunflower growth is an informative lab report that talks about the growth of sunflowers in a four week period by different exposure of light. The article deliberates that the four week period with the increasing amount of light exposure affects the growth of plants. Being as the issue for the excessive amount of lights can cause the plants to wilt and dry out.

The author hypothesized that providing extra hours of light will merely increase the rate of the plant’s growth; however, it mentions in their discussion that since the sunflowers are more dense and sensitive to light hen thy are more likely to be affected. Furthermore, their chart explains that when the weeks go by and that the most exposure of light can actually affects the growth of the sunflowers.

This indicates that they are talking about the growth of sunflower, which sounds very basic and simple. The title is not a sturdy statement that attracts the audience and seems vapid. A person who reads this title would just move on and go to another table that has an interesting title.

The abstract provides the evidence very clearly and is a telling me what is going to be about. The first sentence did not draw my attention when they started “An experiment was…period”, in my preference I would prefer the word this or a transition world like initially. The abstract specifies details that are going to be performed from this experiment. This was a suitable job for summarizing and presenting the experiment.

The purpose of the experiment is on point and they are telling me what is the goal for the experiment. The statement is blunt and just gave a simple statement. The background of the experiment provides new knowledge on what it is point to be about. I realize that the first sentence “sunflowers are seed plants.”, and thought that it was a fragment. However they are explaining late on that what is in the sunflowers and dissecting what is in it. In the second paragraph it talks about the everyday use of sunflowers such as cooking and soap.

In the third paragraph, provides imagery about the oxygen and how it is released in to the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide receives the light which limits its growth. Concluding the last paragraph, there was a counter argument stating “however, increasing amount of light that a pant receives will not increase its growth forever” is a counter claim. This is saying that excessive amount of light can not grow forever, which contradicts their claim and hypothesis. Later on provides a context about the exposure of light can distress the growth of the plant that would decrease the rate of growth.

The hypothesis is very strong and does not provide a jargon and is persuasive. When they are questioning their claims and provide details what is going to happen. As for being replicable, I believe it because of the citations and the refences of  the previous experiments dealt with carrot seeds, according to the materials and methods stating “please note…carrot seeds.” The materials and methods is not in order and is composed with references that was related in a reference experiment. It should have a clean image of what is the experiment is performing. It is been noted that he experiment is previously been done, because of the reference form the work cited.

The results of this experiment provides proof to a wider idea(s) in the experiment. It tells us that the week that provides the least amount of light exposure and later proves a claim that the increased amount of light exposure affects the height of the sunflower in the fourth week. There should be more information in the results that explain with in the light exposure of the sunflower and within each week how tall (in centimeters) is the sunflower(s).

The discussion has a first person point of view, for example they mentioned words like I, My and how they believe. In the second paragraph the author mentioned “this agrees with the known behavior” and claiming that “extra light damaged their leaves, preventing the plants from thriving.” This is a counterclaim and agrees the fact the excess amount of light results the plant to expose its health to be damaged and wilted. Then, concluding “It is possible….answer that question.” , which it does not provide information about the growth of plants but the plant’s sensitivity.

The conclusion of the lab report is not valid, because it is not summarized what the whole experiment is about. This should be a summary on the exposure of light reflect to the growth of sunflowers. There is no structure and idea on the conclusion, the author mentions that the increase amount of exposure of the light damages the plant, therefore concludes their hypothesis as weak explanation.

According to the lab report Acceleration Due to Gravity is an explanatory lab report that talks about the rule on the  gravity that results to a constant acceleration once velocity takes its course once it is free falling. However, the title is very weak even though this lab report is highly informative it lacks the abstract and was hard for the reader to understand.  If the reader has a background knowledge in physics then it will be easier for them. There is no abstract therefore there is no idea on what the author is talking about.

You can tell that the author uses the IEEE format when they used the citations with a brackets and the formatting with the numbers next to the heading. The author could expand the  citations and have more citations which can give a good idea where they get the information than just formulas from a textbook.

The introduction starts of “It is well known…,” I found that this introductory sentience is just a proof that the notation is correct and therefore the reader does not have to read any further. The author should emphasize what are they talking about if it is a proof or a new formula. The introduction has no purpose on what they author trying to talk about, it is just explanations of the formulas in order. The hypothesis is nowhere to be found which gets very confusing and I do not know as a reader what are they proving.

The experimental methods are accurate and briefly organized and it provides a good sense of imagery and describes the experiments. One problem that I notice is in the second paragraph is the problems that the experiment has. I recommend for the problems to be in the discussion and later on explaining what they can improve it. Basically sighting problems should not be in the experimental methods.

The results and discussion should be in two separate ideas and should not be together, like why would you find a result then later discuss it. There is a jargon between the results and discussion, which states that the equation is a way to “prove” the point of free fall that leads to acceleration toward gravity. There is not further explanation just a mathematical investigation to find the proof that acceleration is due to gravity.

The conclusion is very vague and has to do with free falling with a metal ball and the acceleration is due to gravity. There should be further explanation to summarize the whole experiment as a whole. As for making a point of the hypothesis being correct, which the author did not mentioned.

The references that the author cited seems to me that it is a copy and paste from a textbook, the sixth edition of the Fundamentals of Physics. As for the line graph has no title and has a confusing mathematical calculation of the left side of the graph. The notepad in the last page of the lab report was very hard for the reader to understand- I recommend to type it up on a Microsoft note and printing it out.

The lab report overall is explanatory, but it is not persuasive. Unlike the first lab report Factors Controlling Sunflower Growth was persuasive and provides me new information that I learned about the experiment. When the author provides new/unique information to the reader; gives an insight what is going to happen. This allow the audience to know what is going to happen and what is the procedure most going to be like.