Rhetorical Analysis

 

  Kevin Pechersky

Department of English, City College

English 21007 Writing for Engineering

Professor Von Uhl

                   May 11, 2020

 

In order to create an efficient lab report that is accepted by the scientific community, there are certain guidelines in place to ensure that the papers published are consistent with their findings. At the same time, they must be concise and back their findings with further research. In order to be able to analyze the reports, the guidelines from the Technical Communications textbook were used as a way to grade the overall work. The Lab reports Factors Controlling Sun Growth  and Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies were found to be quality reports, while the Soda Bottle Experiment failed to meet the guidelines.

The Lab Report  Factors Controlling Sun Growth is able to match the requirements of a proper report. Whilst missing a table of contents, Student and Munster chose to instead label each area of the report. In the abstract, the experiment is explained in adequate detail. The experiment is explained as a test between the varying hours of exposure to sunlight and the growth that is measured as the result. We find that the hypothesis was supported by the results. 

Background information is provided, as well as a purpose statement. The sunflower’s biology was explained, and brought further information towards understanding the inner workings of the experiment. Thus, the report continues with the hypothesis, a prediction based on the idea that there must be a lower and upper limit in terms of solar energy the plants can be exposed to where it can negatively impact the growth.

After listing the methods and materials, they show the results of the experiment. One is for the sunflower seeds that the owners themselves grew, and the other is the class average (Student & Munster, 2017) . This was effective because it added a control group to the experiment and reduced the chance of any extraneous variables.  The report continues by discussing the results, and how they affected the hypothesis (which was found to be proven true). In addition, any variables that may affect the experiment were listed and then explained how the experiment owner chose to deal with them (Student & Munster, 2017) . The report concludes with a final conclusion, effectively summarizing the experiment, while being concise and leaving no minutiae that would not be necessary. At the very end, the sources are cited.

The Lab Report Soda Bottle Experiment, on the other hand, is unsatisfactory as a proper representation of an admissible report. The Report focuses on the correlation between the height of the bottle and the water dispersed inside.  The purpose was to find if there is a linear relationship between the two, and if so, then will be used to determine the circumference. A majority of the requirements necessary for a complete report were failed to be met.

Lion  does not show a proper table of contents, forgoing this all together and instead labelling each section. Although formulas are shown, the V=A*h is not labeled and it is assumed  that the reader is aware of each key term. (Lion & Columbus, 2003) The Data tables are effective and demonstrate the purpose of showing proper values with correct measurements. However, there is little reflection done on the experiment.  Furthermore, there was no evidence of background research done on the subject. There are no references, bringing to question the genuineness of the report and the credibility of the ones in charge of the experiment. Due to the aforementioned lack of credibility, the report’s authenticity cannot be trusted and so must be rejected.

The Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies  by Alexander Hamiltion is the most complete of the three reports. After the title page, the report transitions straight to the abstract. The means by which flies are able to sustain themselves is defined, providing context for why they are using the flies’s legs and mouth as the target for judging which sugars the flies respond to the most. According to Hamilton (2009), the results are explained, finding that the flies responded to glucose the best, and did not respond to saccharin at all. The introduction breaks down further how the flies are able to survive in the wild, explaining that they walk on food, using their chemoreceptors to find out what is edible and what is not. The hypothesis is stated, with the method by which the experiment is carried out following directly afterwards. The variables are listed as the levels of concentration and the identity of the solute itself. The results  go into detail, describing whether they were statistically significant enough to warrant being stated as a reasonable finding. 

In the discussion portion, Hamilton effectively explains how his first hypothesis was proven true, while his second was not. For each, he uses scientific references and reasoning to demonstrate why the results were the way they were.  Although the conclusion is not stated, the discussion portion ends with a summary of the experiment. Afterwards, there is a cited page as well as the graphs that displayed the results of their findings.

The two reports Factors Controlling Sun Growth and Perception of Different Sugars by blowflies qualify as an acceptable scientific find. The Soda Bottle Experiment, however, does not constitute a credible find as its own sources come into question. Using the aforementioned guidelines, deductive reasoning led to this conclusion.

 

References page:

 

Hamilton (2009). Perception of Different Sugars by Blowflies. Semantic Scholar. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Perception-of-Different-Sugars-by-Blowflies-by-101-Flynn/93edbf77da74115a5b462b3f6dc7eb2a629be72e

 

Lion & Columbus (2003). Soda Bottle Experiment.  Accessed May 11, 2020 https://physics.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Lab%20Resources/Sample%20Lab%20Report.pdf

 

Student & Munster (2007). Factors Controlling Sunflower Growth.  Everettsd. Retrieved from https://www.everettsd.org/cms/lib07/WA01920133/Centricity/Domain/2237/APES-perfect_lab_report-EXAMPLE.pdf

 

Self-Reflection:

For this assignment, the goal was to objectively evaluate each lab report. Using the guidelines from the textbook, I used the rubric to grade each lab report and made note of what was missing. Afterwards, a total tally of what was missing was noted and it was judged whether it is  a  credible report. The need to be objective in my writing sparked the challenge of writing the analysis in third person, refraining from the use of “I” and “me”. As someone who is very used to those terms, it presented a case where I could improve my writing skills.

I wanted to build an argument for the evaluation of each lab report. By breaking down each body of work, therein presented an opportunity to compare each report’s value and credibility. As noted in the essay, I made a claim: of the three reports, two represented quality reports, while the third failed to meet the criteria established by the guidelines of the textbook. After the claim, I needed evidence to back up the argument. I did so, by paraphrasing each report and then writing why or why not the report was valid.

The audience I targeted was those with a scientific background who were interested in knowing more about lab reports, what makes them credible and correct, and what should be abstained from. For example, the Soda Bottle Experiment failed as a report because the information could not be trusted due to a lack of sources. The relationship between the audience and the writer (myself) is akin to them being shown a presentation because that is exactly what my writing was meant to be.