A comparison between lab report 1: “Fatigue Failure through Bending Experiment Adapted from a report submitted by Sarah Thomas” and lab report 2: “Evaluation of Vibration Analysis Tools to predict the Dynamic Integrity of a Truss Structure.”
The title, abstract, introduction, material and method section, results section, discussion section, conclusion section, acknowledgments section, and references section are nine ordinary sections of a standard lab report. This essay is going to compare two lab report through those nine angles. Lab 1 using Chauvenet’s criterion to analyze the resulting numbers of cycles of failure and plot a stress vs cycles diagram to observe the endurance limit of the sample 6061-T6 aluminum with a neck radius of 2.50mm. Lab 2 tested different method for finding the natural frequency of the system and finding the stressed of the truss members. Comparing two lab reports we can say lab report 1 is better than lab report 2 in several ways.
Lab report 1 has a more accurate title than report 2. Lab 1 told the reader what subject they studied in an understandable way. For example, it used “bending experiment” in a stand of a complicated professional name. It also included keywords like “fatigue failure” to make it easily be searching. Lab report 2 make sample problem complicated and do not have the same focus as the report do. The purpose lab 2 is testing different method for finding the natural frequency of the system and finding the stressed of the truss members. Finding out the right method is the purpose, but the title makes the reader think the lab want to find out the “Dynamic integrity”. In the title part, lab reports 1 present reader a better overlook. Report 2 is not only confusing in the title but also has a very bad abstract.
Lab report 1 has a separate section for abstract but lab report 2 don’t have which make Lab report 1 offering a better start. In the separate abstract section of lab report 1, the reader can quickly find out the problem addressed by experimenter’s study, the conclusion of the lab and the implication of the study. From reading the abstract readers can get an overview of the whole experiment. In contrast, lab reports 2 mixed abstracts with an introduction. The Summary and Introduction section from lab report 2 has totally four paragraphs. Readers have to read all the four paragraphs to find the information which can be found in one paragraph in lab report 1. The worse thing is that the reader has read all four paragraphs but still can’t find the information they need. What’s more, the experimenter used a lot “you” and “your” in this section. Those “you” and “your” make the lab report like an email or letter between two persons. The irregular term makes lab report 2 looks unprofessional. If the confusing title and the confused abstract have consumed a lot of patience, then the poor sentence in the materials and methods section is the reason why readers can’t continue reading lab report 2.
In the materials and methods section, lab report 1 has better sentence structure than lab report 2. Report 2 uses a large number of “and” to link sentences, giving readers a very uncomfortable reading experience. In contrast, lab report 1 used a lot of transaction word to connect sentences and make the statement has a better logical relationship.
We don’t have to question the experimenter’s effort on the experiments. However, the lab reports are the final fruit, and the only way to let the reader judge how the experiment is. Lab report 1 showed the reader a simple and clear title, a well-organized abstract, and a logical clear process. Therefore, experiment 1 is a better experiment, and lab report 1 is a better lab report. We can not tell if experiment 2 is a bad experiment or not, but we can say lab report 2 is a bad failure report.
The second assignment is Lab Report Analysis. I was asked to compare the basic elements of two lab report. The lab report is one of the most important article types of engineering writing. To analyze the pros and cons of two lab reports, I must master the key elements of a lab report. Through the analysis and evaluation of the two lad reports, I clearly saw a lot of mistakes we often made, and I saw what a good lab report would look like. What’s important is that this assignment taught me to “analyze.” I have studied a variety of different comparative analysis methods.
