Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Reports

 Jennifer Guayllazaca

The City College of New York

 

 

The different professions in the world today allow for use of sublanguage between people who have a similar background or knowledge to communicate, while others may not know what is being discussed. Jargon is very powerful and allows for more in-depth conversations about a topic without the explanations, but also make a hard time understanding. I analyzed three science lab reports, one named “Diversity and Invasibility of Southern Appalachian Plant Communities” by Rebecca Brown and Robert K. Peet, which goes into depth the growth and rate of growth of Flora in the Appalachian, with both native and exotic flora, and the effect of different “immigration” in the area. “Examination of Protozoan Cultures to Determine Cellular Structure and Motion Pattern” from the NC State University, investigates the cellular structure as well as movement patterns of different types of Protozoans, as well as in what their similarities and differences are. Lastly, we have “Synthesis and Characterization of Luminol” by Maria C. Nagan, Eric V. Patterson and James M. McCormick, this lab goes into depth about the exploration as well as synthetization of Luminol and its different properties, it explains how there are different yielding points for luminol all depending on the process done to the luminol. Despite the very similar structure throughout all the reports, each section had differences that all pertain to the audience in which each were aimed towards and for, as well as the use jargon,

Jargon can differentiate though different people, the three different lab reports all use Jargon in distinct ways. The most successful in its use of jargon is, NC State University’s, “Examination of Protozoan Cultures to Determine Cellular Structure and Motion Pattern”. Their use of jargon allows any reader to fully understand the context as well as flow with much more ease the organization and information given. For example, from the beginning in the Abstract it states, “Protozoans are Unicellular Eukaryotes with plant- or animal- like characteristics.” with the definition at the beginning of the entire report, it minimizes the entire question of what it is, especially as it’s the basis of the whole report.  Moving through the abstract to the introduction, the different explanation of the terms comes into use, they start to explain the different processes of movements, while further explaining the overall reason for this lab. Through the introduction, method, results, discussion and conclusion there is very little overlap in the information given, there was more of an in-depth understanding the further one moved into the overall understanding of the outcomes and context of the overall report. “Examination of Protozoan Cultures to Determine Cellular Structure and Motion Pattern” from the NC State University, is to be understood by many, its extensive description as well as lack of use of filler words gives it an easy understanding and approach allowing many readers to understand, allowing for its audience to be more diverse.

In “Synthesis and Characterization of Luminol” by Maria C. Nagan, Eric V. Patterson and James M. McCormick, unlike in NC State University’s, “Examination of Protozoan Cultures to Determine Cellular Structure and Motion Pattern” report, they did not attempt to define or explain the different compounds and processes that they used. The abstract itself is very short and fragmented to the point in which it states the process of what was done. The introduction was not any better from the abstract, many times it left even more jargon that made the understanding and process more difficult to understand. Words such as Chemiluminescence, it may seem as a complicated word but, it’s just a release of light that happens due to a chemical reaction, more closely related to things like glowsticks. Later in the report towards the discussion, there is a clearer understanding, the jargon first stated in the abstract and in the introduction, are explained to an extent and placed in context with the whole process and findings of the report. With the jargon used we can conclude that the report was intended towards an audience, who has a prior knowledge of what is being explained in the report as well as all its parts. The audience that it was intended for is one who would have such prior knowledge of the topic, that would allow for a much easier understanding.

Lastly “Diversity and invasibility of southern Appalachian Plant communities” by Rebecca Brown and Robert K. Peet, is one that didn’t explain the context. For instance, the use of the word “propagule pressure”, it’s mentioned twice in the whole report yet, it has no explanation of what this process clearly is. The abstract is very clear on the information it gave, as well as the process and an explanation of why this report is done. The further into the report, the introduction moving towards the method and discussion the more details that were given. Many times, to much at a time that made it very overwhelming to be able to understand at times. Brown’s report has an extensive use of description allows for other to be able to understand the context and results which they discuss in detail, but its abundance of detail makes for the information to be lost within the detail or held to a similar level of importance.

All three use Figures, but apart from just using them the integration into the whole itself is also important. This is where descriptions are key as if included with a figure, it can help bring an even clearer picture of what is trying to be conveyed.  Brown does a great in this aspect, along with its descriptions it always referred to the Figures, which in turn had a small description of what it is, allowing for an even clearer understanding of what context that information has to the whole such as in figure 2. An example of it not helping is once again in “Synthesis and Characterization of Luminol” by Maria C. Nagan, Eric V. Patterson and James M. McCormick      its Figures or Schemes are just placed as a placeholder, there is very little context around that allows for a full clear understanding of the figures and report as one. Figures are an important part of a report that can help further the understanding of the information. The importance of having relatable and clear figures to be able to relate to, is related to the understanding of the audience. Every piece of writing has a certain audience, language, and context, it may not be the best for one but may be so for another. Throughout this analysis, there was a further understanding of how structure and follow most writings, but it does not mean that the context is the same or for the same person. Even in the writing we do, there are times where once train of thought is easily understood by one, but not the other, and that’s the same that happens in writing even in formal lab reports like these.

 

 

References

Brown, R. L., & Peet, R. K. (2003). Diversity and Invasibility Of Southern Appalachian Plant Communities. Ecology,84(1), 32-39

Nagan, M. C. & Patterson E.V. & McCormick J. M. (2015). Synthesis and Characterization of Luminol, Truman state University, Chemistry

NC State University (2004). Sample Descriptive Lab Report.

National Science Foundation