Abstract
This is the final version of my analysis of the lab report. This is an improvement over the initial draft since it takes into account the adjustments suggested by the peer evaluations. This project effectively demonstrates my level of comprehension of the two lab reports that I examined and lab report formatting.
Lab Report Analysis
Maria De la Cruz
The City College of New York
Prof. Sara Jacobson
ENGL 21007 – Section D2
03/20/2023
Lab Report Analysis
Lab reports are the most common type of document generated in engineering. The purpose of lab reports is to describe the results and explain their importance. An excellent lab report shows the writer’s understanding of the ideas behind the data in addition to just presenting the facts. There are eight distinct elements that make up the simple and organized process of writing lab reports: the title, abstract, introduction, techniques and materials, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references. “Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis” by Maria Torres Duran et al, and “Feeding on fear: Edible marijuana and disproportionality in the US media” by Michael H. Eversman are both illustrations of lab reports that have all the elements required to properly present their results. The following discussion focuses on the analysis, comparison, and contrast in the structure of the reports.
The title, which comes first in a lab report, serves as information for the reader to determine whether the report will be of interest to them. The title of the first report, “Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis”, helps illustrate to the reader that the lab report is about how radon affects the lungs as well as lets the reader know where the study is taking place. The title of the second report, “Feeding on fear: Edible marijuana and disproportionality in the US media”, helps understand to the reader that the lab report is about how legal edibles are constructed disproportionately in textual US news reportage. The title is short in both reports; hence, they do not have the necessary information to help the reader save time searching for specific terms. The titles are not detailed enough because the main terms used in the study were not specified. This makes both titles more ineffective compared to a detailed title as it doesn’t allow the reader to fully understand what the study is about.
The abstract, the second section of a lab report, is used to summarize the entire document in a limited space and may also include the introduction, methods, findings, discussion, and conclusion. Based on the abstract in addition to the title, other scientists and engineers can determine if the information in the reports is relevant to their study. There are two different kinds of abstracts: informative abstracts, which illustrate the findings of the study, and descriptive abstracts, which just offer details on the issues covered.
In Duran’s report, the reader may get a rough understanding of what happened in the report by reading the abstract, which contains all the other elements. For example, Duran’s report states, “This study sought to ascertain whether there might be an association between radon concentrations and age, gender, histologic type, and tumor stage at diagnosis…There was no association between indoor radon concentrations and age, gender, histologic type, or tumor stage at diagnosis.” (Duran et al p.1). The abstract of Duran’s report provides enough information and highlights the most relevant findings of the study to allow the reader to quickly determine whether they want to read the complete report. The data reveal that there is no link between radon and age, gender, histologic type, or stage of the tumor upon diagnosis. The statement serves to rapidly convey the results without getting into too much detail, which can assist the reader to comprehend the rationale for the study. Duran’s report successfully used the abstract since it has the purpose, methods, materials, results, and conclusion briefly summarized. Similarly, Eversman’s report describes each component of the lab report. In Eversman’s report, states, “Using reports of emergencies, poison center calls, and anecdotes, disproportionality surrounding edibles was constructed using indefinite numeric adjectives while avoiding or downplaying totals and presenting statistics with little context to gauge danger relative to other substances” (Eversman p.1). This enables readers to comprehend what Eversman uncovered throughout his research. Because of how it was worded, the abstract also offered the reader a greater sense of how the study progressed. Along with describing the study’s findings, Eversman was able to go over the various procedures used. Both reports’ abstracts are deemed “informative abstracts” since they both depict their findings, which can assist the reader to comprehend what happened in the study.
The introduction, which serves to highlight the importance of the study as well as the methodology, is the third section of the lab report. The introduction provides the background of past studies in addition to defining the purpose of the researcher’s study. In Duran’s introduction, information is given that is relevant to the study and illustrates why it is important since lung cancer is the leading cause of all cancer-related deaths. Duran’s introduction, states, “the development of lung cancer is exposure to indoor radon” (Duran et al p.1). The introduction shows why the study is relevant. Not only people who actively smoke may be exposed to lung cancer, but people who are exposed to radon gas as well. It gives a better understanding to the reader as to why the study is so important since it demonstrates how impactful it may be to not only the people whose smoke actively but also individuals who have never smoked. Eversman’s introduction also includes why the information given is relevant to the study and why it is important and the events that may happen during the research due to problems that are revealed. However, it includes information as to what will be displayed throughout the report. In Eversman’s introduction, it states, “During the moral panic, the true threat posed by certain social problems is exaggerated…often more serious social problems are accepted or ignored” (Eversman p.2). Although it describes the information that will already be included later in the report, the information does not give the reader any substantial background information. As it gives pointless information, the arrangement of the lab report shouldn’t be described in the introduction. But Eversman might have done that to make clear what happens next to readers who might not be familiar with lab findings.
The fourth part of a lab report, the materials and methods section, is utilized to show the validity of the method used and lend credibility to the findings by outlining how the results were attained. Both a description of the experiment’s components and its methods may be found under the section on materials and techniques. In Duran’s materials and methods section, Duran mentions the different cases of lung cancer from numerous multicenter case-control studies were analyzed, and clinical data were gathered through electronic health records and personal interviews. In Duran’s data and methods section, it states, “all cases were personally interviewed using a questionnaire, to obtain detailed information on their lifestyle habits, with special emphasis on tobacco use” (Duran et al p.2). The information provided is used to demonstrate how each case must be addressed separately to examine the effect of radon in patients who smoke tobacco and patients who do not. This lends credibility to the report by demonstrating why the study was conducted in the manner that it was. Eversman’s materials and methods section provides reasoning as to how the data used can help assist in the study. In Eversman’s data and methods section, it states, “Retrieved articles were saved as word processing documents and entered as qualitative data analysis software files (Atlas TI, v. 7.5, Corvallis, OR).” (Eversman p.4). Eversman was able to analyze the information that is being used in the study to help support his report. This piece of information allows Eversman to explain the other factors in which the information is used in the procedure. Although in distinct parts, Eversman’s data and methods section incorporates information about what will be in the result and discussion sections. There were no materials indicated in either study, which is because neither report required any materials because Eversman utilizes studied data (articles), and Duran simply indicates how clinical information was collected through electronic health records and personal interviews.
The findings section, which is the lab report’s fifth section, provides a summary of the data collected. It is meant to provide a description of the data from the experiment to bolster the researchers’ case in the discussion section. Duran’s results section clearly goes into detail as to how small-cell lung cancer is more commonly associated with higher radon exposure. Duran’s results section, states, “Of the total of 829 lung cancer cases included, 56.7% were smokers or ex-smokers.” (Duran et al p.2). Duran was not only able to explain his findings, but also prove them by showing data that supports his claims. The same was done with the other information as Duran was able to explain how indoor radon concentrations increased with age at diagnosis. Along with the explanation, many graphs are included to help illustrate the findings which displayed whether the claim made was correct. Eversman’s results section also provides reasoning as to how the data found can help support the claims made. Eversman’s results section, states, “Deviance was ascribed to marijuana by exaggerating its toxicity when eaten and downplaying important contextual factors” (Eversman p.4). Eversman is confident that the experiment will provide the expected results, the information from the findings complements the discussion part, and it also includes the discussion section.
The analysis of the experiment’s results and the determination of the validity of the suggested hypothesis take place in the discussion section, which is the lab report’s sixth component. It is used to assess the results and compare the information that was gathered on the issue. Duran’s discussion section uses the information discovered from the experiment to help prove the claim that was made. Duran’s discussion section, states, “Our results highlight the fact that residential radon concentration does not appear to be associated with a worse stage at diagnosis or age at diagnosis.” (Duran et al p.4). With the claim that if age, gender, histologic type, and tumor stage at diagnosis may be related to radon exposure, Duran was able to use the information found to emphasize the fact that home radon concentration does not appear to relate to a poorer stage or age at diagnosis. The study effectively analyzes the data that was found because it explains the relationship between lung cancer and radon during diagnosis, as well as the physical characteristics of the patient. Eversman’s discussion section provides evidence to help support his claim on how the method created is effective. In Eversman’s discussion section, it states, “While considering the presence of all moral panic elements is beyond the scope of this analysis, there is evidence of media generated disproportionality and other key features of the moral panic surrounding edible marijuana” (Eversman p.8). After analyzing the different articles, Eversman was able to claim that most articles exaggerate the risk presented by edible marijuana and the social deviance around it. Giving significant data to back up the claim allows Eversman to explain why the excessive emphasis on marijuana helps organizations to maintain criminalization laws in place while diverting attention away from other crucial societal challenges.
The seventh and last section of a lab report, the conclusion, summarizes the major topics covered and persuades the reader of the importance of the report’s conclusions. As Duran’s conclusion discusses the findings, how radon affects the lungs, as well as the problems identified and how they might be used to develop better solutions, it can synthesize all the crucial topics. Duran’s conclusion, states, “to conclude, there would not appear to be any relationship between exposure to residential radon and LC characteristics at diagnosis” (Duran et al p.5). In the conclusion, Duran was able to explain their findings and how future research is still needed, which may be because Duran understands that the current findings will be necessary for future experiments because the biological processes underlying radon’s carcinogenic impact are unknown. Eversman’s conclusion was also able to summarize the important points about suicide, domestic violence, and gun violence all having various causes and antecedents, making no one element completely explain their incidence. Eversman even gives an overview of the paper as to why it is important. Eversman’s conclusion, states, “marijuana criminalization policies and limiting its availability as a therapeutic and recreational substance benefit from disproportionate danger ascribed to it.” (Eversman p.8). In the conclusion, Eversman was able to summarize the study, what the technique does, and how it works. Furthermore, Eversman gives the study’s findings for future researchers to expand on. These are traits that may present problems in future studies.
The title, abstract, introduction, materials and procedures, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references are just a few of the components that are often included in lab reports to organize the information. Both Duran and Everman utilized each of these components well to create lab reports that would stimulate readers’ interests in a particular field of study. Yet, there have been times when both lab reports diverge from the information that should be provided in each component. This was most likely since the researchers for both reports felt it was important to provide specific information even if it wasn’t pertinent to one of the components. Overall, the material presented in each area of a lab report is essential for persuading the reader of the importance of the inquiry.
Reference
Eversman, M. H. (2016). Feeding on fear: Edible marijuana and disproportionality in US media. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 23(6), 462–470. https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.3109/09687637.2016.1167168
Torres-Durán, M., Casal-Mouriño, A., Ruano-Ravina, A., Provencio, M., Parente-Lamelas, I., Hernández-Hernández, J., Vidal-García, I., Varela-Lema, L., Valdés Cuadrado, L., Fernández-Villar, A., Barros-Dios, J., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2021). Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 97(7), 997–1002. https://doi-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1080/09553002.2021.1913527
Self-Reflection
Working on my lab report analysis project forced me to improve my writing style, which improved my writing. Before I was asked to write in a different format, I was able to finish the first draft of my lab report analysis. I normally write a draft till the task is finished. Yet, since these assignments need a deeper level of understanding, I felt obligated to do research and plan out how I would write my first draft. I got the opportunity to solicit feedback from my other pupils after finishing my initial drafts. Because the writing assignments I complete for my other classes do not receive peer review, I was really grateful to receive feedback on my work and the opportunity to change it. I was able to see that I should write for my audience rather than for myself, even though I disagreed with some of the comments. This gave me the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the feedback I had gotten, which helped me understand how I should always consider peer criticism and, when possible, incorporate it into my work.
Writing my lab report analysis helped me to better understand lab reports. In order to compose this essay, I had to look through and find fresh information during my research for my lab report analysis. Also, given the length of lab reports, I wasn’t sure how to assess the work because a lot of information that I believed to be essential was omitted. Even though lab reports were nothing new to me, I was still able to comprehend how to analyze them and how they were generally formatted. Being exposed to a variety of writing styles has, in my opinion, had a positive impact on my capacity to both collect and analyze new information. I benefited from the lectures since they provided me with guidance on how to approach various assignments. Also, I found annotating to be really beneficial since it enabled me to simplify the content in a way that made it simple to understand and might potentially be the subject of a blog post.
Although it was a little difficult for me to manage the time to complete this assignment, during the planning stage of my writing I made it a point to dedicate 90 minutes every day to my lab report analysis paper. This helped me complete the assignment on time. However, I feel like I needed more time to revise the writing. Completing this assignment has helped me improve my writing not only because I learned to present information in a more professional manner, but also because I had to do research to get the two lab reports I analyzed in my paper.
This assignment has helped me improve my ability to analyze information, conduct research, and time management. Although it was difficult for me to review my writing because I am still in the process of learning English as a new language, the feedback received from my peers during class was very helpful to improve my writing. On the other hand, during the process of writing my lab report analysis, I learned a lot of new things about lung cancer in relation to radon gas, as well as social panic in relation to edible marijuana and other social issues.
