Abstract
This is the initial version of my analysis of the lab report. As I learned more about lab reports, I was able to evaluate the two lab reports I used to demonstrate how well I understood both their layout and the data they included. The two lab reports I located are distinct from one another. I had to compare and contrast the portions of the two lab reports and examine the rationale behind their respective styles of writing. Peer evaluations of this draft have helped me refine my work for the final draft.
Lab Report Analysis
Maria De la Cruz
The City College of New York
Prof. Sara Jacobson
ENGL 21007 – Section D2
03/02/2023
Lab Report Analysis
For STEM students in grade schools, colleges, and universities, lab reports are a typical task. These students may be better prepared to create formal scientific reports and research papers for professional responsibilities by writing these documents. An evaluation of a scientific experiment is contained in a lab report. It explains what an individual or group of individuals performed during an experiment, what they learned, and why the outcomes are significant. 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. The study entitled, “Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis” by Maria Torres Duran et al, analyzes the effect of this dangerous gas on the lungs. Age, gender, histologic type, and tumor stage at diagnosis were factors that the study looked at to see if there could be a connection between radon concentrations and any of these factors. Another study titled “Feeding on fear: Edible marijuana and disproportionality in the US media” by Michael H. Eversman investigate how legal edibles are constructed disproportionately in textual US news reportage. The following discussion focuses on the analysis, comparison, and contrast in the structure of the aforementioned reports.
First, the report entitled “Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis” by Maria Torres Duran Et Al will be mentioned as Lab Report #1. Then, the study “Feeding on fear: Edible marijuana and disproportionality in the US media” by Michael H. Eversman will be reviewed as lab report #2. Below will be discussed the structure of a lab report, using the previous studies as illustrations.
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 key terms of the study, “Residential radon and lung cancer characteristics at diagnosis”, son: lung neoplasms; residential radon; case-series; histologic type; stage tumor (Torres Duran et al, 2021), however, the title only has two of the essential terms of the study; lung and residential radon. Similarly, the report “Feeding on Fear: Edible Marijuana and Disproportionality in US Media” has the following keywords: Cannabis, drugs, policy, qualitative research, and substance abuse (Eversman, 2016); the title lacks the fundamental words of the study. Undoubtedly, both titles are not effective enough because the main terms used in the study were not specified.
Report #1 has an informative abstract because it presents the best findings. According to Torres Duran et al (2021), 56.7% of the 829 lung cancer patients that were included in the study were current or former smokers. Indoor radon levels did not correlate with age, gender, histologic type, or tumor stage at diagnosis. For males, but not for women, the median indoor radon concentrations rose with age at diagnosis. A predominance of small cell lung cancer and a greater presence of advanced stages (IIIB and IV) was found in the analysis of patients exposed to more than 1000Bq/m3. Clearly, the abstract shows enough information and presents the most important findings of the study, allowing the reader to quickly decide if they are interested in reading the full report. The findings show that there doesn’t appear to be a relationship between radon and age, gender, histologic type, or stage of the tumor upon diagnosis.
Likewise, the abstract of report #2 details important points, research techniques, noteworthy findings, and the drawn conclusion. Thus, readers are aware of the paper’s essential subject matter before reading any further. According to Eversman (2016), the most important findings were: 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. The data used to construct this disproportionality were reports of emergencies, poison center calls, and anecdotes. The abstract of this report is effective because it presents the most important results and findings of the entire study concisely. The findings explain how and why some social problems are unfairly stereotyped and stigmatized while other significant issues are accepted or disregarded.
Work Citation
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
