On the contrary, [3] and [4] do have abstracts. It can be concluded that including the abstract depends on your institution but also the nature of your lab report. Some subjects do not require it since they aren’t exploratory or adventurous in nature. While others do since they have a new insight or idea to test. Sally [4] states “The results supported my hypothesis that sunflower plants will grow best when they are exposed to more light, except for the 20h condition, where they willed be stunned by excessive light” [4]. Compared to Hamilton [3], which states “They didn’t feed on saccharin because the saccharin we use is actually the sodium salt of saccharin, and they reject salt solutions. Overall, our results show that flies are able to taste and choose foods that are good for them” [3]. Lab report [3] states its results and stops right there. It does not continue to summarize the rest of its lab report compared to Sally [4]. Sally [4] includes its conclusion and discussion into the abstract to better understand the lab report. I would read Sally [4] over Hamilton [3]
…show more content…
This burdens the main idea to be intricate and cohesive. Virginia Tech [2] keeps it short, maybe too short and doesn’t explain any details since its more common knowledge. While Lab [1] must explain as more research is required to understand the lab’s intentions, Hamilton [3] provides background information yet also explains the reason for its test subjects. “Studies of sensory physiology have often used insects as experimental subjects because insects can be manipulated with ease and because their sensory-response system is relatively simple (E. Williams, personal communication)” [3]. Hamilton [3] resembles Virginia Tech [2] by providing a reason for its existence but goes a step ahead by showing why it chose its
This burdens the main idea to be intricate and cohesive. Virginia Tech [2] keeps it short, maybe too short and doesn’t explain any details since its more common knowledge. While Lab [1] must explain as more research is required to understand the lab’s intentions, Hamilton [3] provides background information yet also explains the reason for its test subjects. “Studies of sensory physiology have often used insects as experimental subjects because insects can be manipulated with ease and because their sensory-response system is relatively simple (E. Williams, personal communication)” [3]. Hamilton [3] resembles Virginia Tech [2] by providing a reason for its existence but goes a step ahead by showing why it chose its