Tamzid Rahman

February 18, 2019

Lab Report Analysis

Writing for Engineers

Lab Report Analysis

Writing a lab report relies on both practical and theoretical knowledge at the lab or even the outside world. These two lab reports are unique in very different aspects related to voice, structure, data, analysis, and discussion. These two lab reports have a designated purpose of needing to reach out there audience. The hypothesis clearly states the objective(s) of the experiment. When you do an experiment, it relies on a journal, a piece of paper or even a cellphone. A proper lab report relies on communication to the viewers of your experiment to the outside world. There are many ways to write a proper experimental lab report in various science classes from psychology to zoology. From the structure of a lab report to the data shows quality versus the quantity, it is not how many pages you write but how you write.

Factors Controlling Sunflower Growth is an informative lab report that talks about the growth of sunflowers in a four week period under different exposure of light. The article reflects that the four week period with the increasing amount of light exposure affects how tall the plants are. One potential issue, is the excessive amount of light can cause the plant to 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 sensitive to light they are more likely to be affected. Furthermore, their chart explains that when the weeks go by the highest exposure of light can negatively affect the growth of the sunflowers. The title indicates that they are talking about the growth of sunflower, which sounds very basic and simple. The title is not a detailed statement that attracts the audience and seems dull. A person who reads this title would move on another table that has an interesting title.

The abstract provides the evidence very clearly and is a telling me what is the lab going to be about. The first sentence did not draw my attention when they started with “An experiment was….period.” I would prefer introductory words such as “initially”. The abstract specifies details that are going to be presented from this experiment. They did a suitable job for summarizing and presenting the experiment.

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

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

The hypothesis is very strong and persuasive but does not provide any jargon.  They question their claims and provide evidence about what is going to happen. This is replicable because of the citations and the references of the previous experiments done with carrot seeds. According to the materials and methods stating, “please note…carrot seeds.” The materials and methods are not in order and are composed of references that were related in a different experiment. It should have a clean image of what the experiment is performing. It is been noted that the experiment has previously been done, because of the reference from the work cited.

The results of this experiment provide proof of wider ideas 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 within the light exposure of the sunflower and within each week how tall (in centimeters) is the sunflower(s). The discussion uses a first-person point of view. For example, they mentioned words like I, My and how they believe. This is important, because it reflects on the point of view. In the second paragraph, the author mentioned “this agrees with the known behavior” and claimed that “extra light damaged their leaves, preventing the plants from thriving.” This is a counterclaim and agrees on the fact the excess amount of light results in 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 this report did not summarize what the whole experiment is about. This should be a summary on how the exposure of light affected the growth of sunflowers. There is no structure and idea of the conclusion. The author mentions that the increasing amount of exposure of the light damages the plant, therefore concludes their hypothesis is wrong.

Acceleration Due to Gravity is an explanatory lab report that talks about the rule of gravity that results in 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 any 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 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 with “It is well known…,” I found that this introductory sentence is a proof that the formula is correct and therefore the reader does not have to read any further. The author should emphasize what they are talking about, if it is a proof or a new formula. The introduction has no purpose. 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 stated and provide a good sense of imagery that describes the experiments. I recommend for the problems to be in the discussion and later on explaining what they can to improve it. Citing problems should not be in the experimental methods.

The results and discussion should be in two separate ideas and should not be together. There is a physics 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. The jargon is mentioned in the last sentence of the results and discussion, “The accepted value…not surprising.” There is no 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 a further explanation to summarize the whole experiment. The author did not mention whether the hypothesis was correct.

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.”  The graph has no title and has a confusing mathematical calculation on the left side. The notepad in the last page of the lab report was very hard for the reader to understand- I recommend typing it up on a Microsoft Word and printing it out.

In these two lab reports the layout is similar and so is the introduction. However, the content about Acceleration Due to Gravity has significant information that I learned from the procedures than the one about sunflower growth. Even though, both the lab reports in my opinion have bland titles, I will critique that the acceleration due to gravity has more content than the sunflower growth lab report. Both of the lab reports lack on the materials, but the one that gives further information of what the procedure is going to be about is the Acceleration Due to Gravity. Unlike the Acceleration Due to Gravity, the math calculation about sunflower growth was simple and was easy to understand. The physics behind the Acceleration Due to Gravity makes me not wanting to take physics ever again, because the concepts are for people who know background information about physics.

In summary, the first lab report on sunflower an experiment that was previously performed with the lack of new information. The lab report on Acceleration Due to Gravity is more confusing to readers like me who are new to the experiment. This lab report is for people that know the concepts of physics and understand the technical background around it. 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 or unique information to the reader, it gives an insight about is going to happen. This allows the audience to know what is going to happen and what the procedure is going to be like.