Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Reports

 

Tasmia Sultana

Writing For Engineers

21007- E2

Professor Davidow

 

The two lab reports I have chosen to compare and contrast are of two different subjects. The first lab report is an engineering report called “Evaluation of Vibration Analysis Tools to Predict the Dynamic Integrity of a Truss Structure”, by Aimee Lalime. A report that is supposed to evaluate the static and dynamic integrity of the frame structure of the Model 53 Air Conditioner. The following lab report I chose is “Temperature and Pressure Measurements of an Ideal Gas That Is Heated in a Closed Container”, by Michael Alley. The report discusses an experiment to study the relationship between temperature and pressure of an ideal gas that was heated in a closed container. I will compare and contrast both reports based on the 8 different elements used. These 8 elements are sourced from Mike Markel’s textbook, “Technical Communications”.

 

Both reports have shown their experiments sufficiently answered their question. Lalime’s lab report title was “Evaluation of Vibration Analysis Tools to Predict the Dynamic Integrity of a Truss Structure”. Ardern’s title was ‘Temperature and Pressure Measurements of an Ideal Gas That Is Heated in a Closed Container’. Lalime and Alley both explained their experiments effectively in the title, which is very important for the reader in order to properly introduce the topic to make it easier for the reader to understand. Lalime’s report has an abstract which summarizes the experiment for the reader at the beginning of the paper. She structures her report by combining her abstract with the introduction under the same subtopic. The abstract follows Markel’s example from “Technical Communications” greatly as it

 

completely goes through every general step in the experiment needed to get to the final result. As Lalime also included in the introduction she also wrote the purpose for this experiment, which is to redesign the truss structure of an air conditioner. Alley’s report is simpler than Lalime’s as it does not include an abstract but only an introduction. I think the author chose to do this because the experiment’s purpose is to see the differences between temperature and pressure in an ideal gas equation. This is relatively easier experiment to conduct than figuring out how to redesign a truss structure.

 

Both lab reports included materials and methods, which according to “Technical Communications”, by Mike Markel, is to convince your readers that your approach was appropriate for the question you hoped to answer, that you conducted your research or experiment carefully and that your results are credible. Alley’s report labeled its’ materials and methods section as ‘Procedures’. He just explains the steps of the experiment while including mathematical evidence to back up the reasoning for his steps. Lalime’s report follows a different structure as she breaks up the different steps into 4 different subtopics. It is broken up into “Strain Gage and Dial Indicator”, ”Lissajou Method”,  “Finite Element Analysis”, and “HP Signal Analyzer”. She does this to organize all the different elements in the experiment so it will make it easier on the reader to understand the information. She uses this format to present her results, which is the next element used in the lab report. It is where the author is able to present their evidence to support their claims made throughout the report. With this format not only does the author split the different subjects, but she includes the results and graphs in each

 

part of the experiment. Her experiment is compounded with many different elements. This led her to organize in a way where she presented her procedure and results right after, so the reader would not confuse different experiment results with each other. Alley’s results are shown in a table also explained under the subtopic “Results and Discussion”. The author explained the results of the experiment and how it correlates with the ideal gas equation. He thoroughly refers back to the equation, also admitting to a small error that developed during the experiment. The writer combines his results and discussion together in one paragraph because they are related to each other. Furthermore, his experiment is very small with not too much information; so he combined them to make it concise and clear.

 

The next element most lab reports follow is the discussion where you analyze your results and how they contribute to your experiment. Alley named his discussion subtopic as ‘Results and Discussion’ which was discussed in the previous paragraph. Lalime’s discussion is made of up two subtopics and is named “Comparison and Analysis of Tools” and “Truss Redesign”. In both these subtopics, she displayed all her results in different tables and chose which tool is the best to find the natural frequency. Also, she talks about the truss redesign and how they would be able to do it with the information from the results. I think the author put them under two subtopics to allow the reader to focus on each separate topic and its results to understand the whole experiment better. In Lalime’s report, there are many parts that belong to one experiment so she wants to make sure the audience is not misinformed in any way.

The second to last element needed to complete a lab report is a conclusion. “Summarize the main points covered by your report in one or two concise paragraphs. Begin by reviewing the

purpose of your research or experiment and the hypothesis (or hypotheses) you tested” (Markel, 2015, p. 522). Markel emphasizes the need to wrap up all the ideas you have just written to leave the audience with the main purpose of the lab report. Both lab reports have included a conclusion which is needed in a proper lab report. Alley’s report nicely wraps up the results of the experiment with the fact that temperature and pressure are related to the ideal gas equation. Also, including the error that occurred during the experiment. Lalime’s report also concluded her report by talking about the experiments she conducted and which method is best to measure the natural frequency to redesign the truss structure, which is the Lissajou method. She also included references in her report to cite any evidence she used throughout the lab report. Michael Alley did not include a references page for his experiment. I think the author made this decision because the lab report did not need to use citations from other sources since it was a simple experiment. According to Mike Markel’s “Technical Communications”, acknowledgments is the last element in a lab report. Both reports did not write in any acknowledgments most likely because they did not receive any help from any other colleagues.

 

Lalime’s report is supposed to evaluate the static and dynamic integrity of the frame structure of

 

the Model 53 Air Conditioner. Alley’s report discusses an experiment to study the relationship between temperature and pressure of an ideal gas that was heated in a closed container. Both lab reports were different but still executed the same purpose. The purpose to explain their experiment, how they conducted it, and what were the results. Lalime’s report was lengthy but detail oriented. While Alley’s report was short and straightforward. They both were effective and their different formats suit their experiments and their results. I compared and contrasted the reports by using the 8 different lab report elements stated by Mike Markel’s “Technical Communications”.

 

 

Self-Reflection

 

In the Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Reports, I made sure I did an adequate amount of research for the perfect lab reports to compare to each other. This did not take to long because of the vast amount of lab report readily available. A part of the task was to also annotate the lab reports since we had to also analyze them in our rhetorical analysis. So, I did some research on how to properly annotate so I could obtain the best analytics from the lab report. This helped a lot also, annotations are fairly easy and made the rhetorical analysis process go faster.

 

After I completed my first rough draft of the rhetorical analysis we had them reviewed by our peers last Monday. I realized my draft had a citation error which I made even though English is my first language. I still made that mistake since it was only my first draft. My partner followed the rubric and reviewed my draft. He pointed out small grammar errors and an incomplete conclusion. I used this information and advice from my professor to complete my assignment.

 

As I started to edit my rhetorical analysis I started running into a few problems. Since we have to compare and contrast not only the two lab report but “Technical Communications”, by Mike Markel. It started to become confusing when identifying and clarifying which text I was referring to. But, I just wrote all my important information down first and just organized it. Even though, we had to use the textbook to help us write this I still needed another source to completely understand the assignment. I still found writing this analysis a bit vague so I tried to

 

look at compare and contrast essay online for an example. I think in the future when you give this assignment you can show your students a past assignment to reference to.

 

Overall, the assignment was not extremely difficult. It was more tedious than hard to complete. It was tedious because of the constant referring to three different texts and making sure it is all clear and concise. Because of the number of texts used it took a while to write this analysis and edit it. It did not require too much effort but more of time which when you have a bunch of other assignments to complete as a college student is crucial to you. Other than that this assignment was something new I have never done before. I look forward to doing more new and creative assignments to keep the class interesting.