Exercises — Chapter 13: Lab Reports and Technical Reports

Writing is learned by writing. Most of these ask you to produce or revise text, not pick a letter. Where a task is open-ended, a self-assessment rubric follows instead of an answer key. Difficulty is marked ⭐ (warm-up) to ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (extension).

Part A — Analyze This ⭐

Read each item and identify what works or what's broken. Name the principle.

A1. Which IMRaD section does each sentence belong in? Label each (I = Introduction, M = Methods, R = Results, D = Discussion). - (a) "Mean tumor volume was 142 mm³ in the treated group and 318 mm³ in controls (p = 0.003)." - (b) "Existing antifouling coatings lose effectiveness after roughly six months of immersion, and no field-tested alternative exists for tropical waters." - (c) "The smaller tumor volume in the treated group suggests the compound slows proliferation, consistent with its known inhibition of the mTOR pathway." - (d) "Mice were dosed daily by oral gavage (10 mg/kg) for 21 days; tumor volume was measured every third day with calipers." - (e) "A key limitation is that the study used a single cell line, so generalization to other tumor types is unwarranted." - (f) "Cell viability did not differ between the two solvents (p = 0.74)."

Answer(a) **R** — bare observation with statistic. (b) **I** — context plus the gap (no field-tested alternative). (c) **D** — "suggests … consistent with the mTOR pathway" is interpretation. (d) **M** — procedure with parameters. (e) **D** — a stated limitation. (f) **R** — an observation, even though it's a null result. Tells: bare numbers → R; "suggests/limitation/consistent with" → D; "we did X to Y" → M; gap statements → I.

A2. Here is a Methods sentence. List every question a reader would need answered before they could reproduce it. "Samples were heated and then characterized using standard techniques."

AnswerHeated to what temperature, for how long, in what atmosphere, at what ramp rate, in what equipment? "Characterized" how—which techniques (XRD? SEM? something else), on which instruments, with what settings? "Standard techniques" names nothing. Essentially every word hides a parameter. This is the curse of knowledge: clear to the person who did it, useless to everyone else (§13.4).

A3. A Discussion ends: "These groundbreaking results prove conclusively that our method is superior and will transform the industry." The study compared the new method to one baseline, once, with n = 12. Name three things wrong with the sentence.

Answer(1) "Prove conclusively" — a single n = 12 study cannot prove anything; calibrate to "suggests" (§13.6). (2) "Superior" — superiority over *one* baseline isn't superiority in general; the claim exceeds the comparison made. (3) "Will transform the industry" — an interpretive leap with zero supporting evidence; pure overclaiming. Bonus: "groundbreaking" is editorializing. (§13.6)

A4. Read this abstract and decide whether it delivers or merely describes: "This report presents an investigation into the thermal properties of the new alloy. Several experiments were conducted. The findings are reported and their implications discussed." Explain.

AnswerIt **describes** — it announces that an investigation, experiments, findings, and a discussion exist, but conveys no actual content (no thermal property, no number, no conclusion). A reader learns nothing they couldn't have guessed. A delivering abstract would state the actual results ("the alloy retained strength up to 600 °C, 80 °C higher than the standard grade") so it stands alone (§13.7).

A5. An Introduction reads: "Climate change is one of the most important issues facing humanity today. Many researchers have studied carbon capture. Carbon can be captured in various ways. In this study, we look at a new material." Identify which of the four Introduction beats (context / gap / response / forward pointer) are present and which are missing or weak.

Answer**Context** is present but generic ("important issue," "various ways"). The **gap** is entirely missing — nothing tells us what is unknown or unsolved about carbon-capture materials. The **response** is vague ("look at a new material" — to do what? measure what?). No forward pointer. The fatal omission is the gap: without it the study has no stated reason to exist. Background without a gap is a literature dump (§13.3).

A6. Two reports describe the same vendor evaluation. Report 1 (for a journal-style audience) opens with the evaluation methodology and ends with the recommendation. Report 2 opens with "We recommend Vendor B ($480K); here's why." Neither is wrong. Explain what reader each is built for, and name the principle that decides which to use.

AnswerReport 1 suits a reader who must evaluate the *process* and wants the conclusion earned (a technical reviewer); Report 2 suits a decision-maker who wants to act fast (a manager/executive). The deciding principle is **audience** ([Ch 2](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-02-audience/index.md)) expressed as BLUF vs. earned-conclusion ordering ([Ch 4](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-04-structure/index.md)): structure serves how the reader uses the document. Workplace readers get recommendations first (§13.8); peer evaluators get the IMRaD arc.

A7. Spot the editorializing. In this Results passage, underline (list) every word or phrase that interprets or judges rather than observes: "Impressively, the modified algorithm ran 3× faster, clearly proving its superiority. As expected, memory use rose slightly, which is an acceptable trade-off."

AnswerEditorializing: "Impressively" (judgment), "clearly proving its superiority" (causal/evaluative claim), "As expected" (imports the hypothesis), "which is an acceptable trade-off" (judgment + recommendation). The only observations are "ran 3× faster" and "memory use rose slightly" — and even those need numbers. A clean Results version: "The modified algorithm ran 3.1× faster (mean of 10 runs) and used 12% more memory." Everything else belongs in Discussion (§13.5).

Part B — Revise This ⭐⭐

Rewrite the weak passages. Give the scenario, not the answer.

B1. Rewrite this editorializing Results passage so it reports observations only, moving all interpretation out. (You may invent reasonable numbers where the passage is vague.)

"The treatment worked beautifully. Patients in the treatment group recovered much faster than the control group, which clearly demonstrates the drug's powerful effect. Surprisingly, side effects were minimal, confirming the drug's excellent safety profile and proving it is ready for wider use."

Rubric (self-assess)A strong rewrite (a) removes every judgment word (beautifully, much, clearly, powerful, surprisingly, excellent) and every claim verb (demonstrates, confirms, proving); (b) reports the observation neutrally with numbers and a statistic ("Median recovery time was 4.2 days in the treatment group vs. 6.8 days in controls, p = 0.01. Adverse events occurred in 8% of the treatment group vs. 6% of controls."); (c) leaves "ready for wider use" out entirely — that's an unsupported Discussion claim, and an overclaim at that. If your rewrite still contains *any* word that says whether the result is good, it isn't done. (§13.5)

B2. Rewrite this vague Methods passage to be replicable. Invent specific, plausible parameters where the original is vague; the point is to show what kind of detail is required.

"We grew the cells under normal conditions, treated them with the compound, and measured the response after some time using a plate reader."

Rubric (self-assess)A strong rewrite specifies: cell line and source; growth medium, serum, and incubation conditions (e.g., "37 °C, 5% CO₂"); the compound concentration(s) and vehicle; the exact treatment duration ("after 24 h" — not "some time"); the assay and what was measured; the plate reader model and the wavelength/setting; replicates. Example opening: "HeLa cells (ATCC CCL-2) were cultured in DMEM with 10% FBS at 37 °C, 5% CO₂. At 70% confluence, cells were treated with compound X at 1, 10, and 100 µM (in 0.1% DMSO) for 24 h. Viability was measured by MTT assay, reading absorbance at 570 nm on a BioTek Synergy H1 plate reader (n = 6 wells per condition)." If a labmate could not repeat your version, add detail (§13.4).

B3. Rewrite this Discussion so it (a) stops restating the Results, (b) calibrates its language to the evidence, and (c) adds a sentence of limitations. The study: a one-semester classroom trial, 2 sections (~30 students each), comparing a new teaching method to the standard one; the new method's section scored 4 points higher on the final.

"The new-method section scored 4 points higher on the final than the standard section. This proves the new teaching method is better and shows that all instructors should adopt it immediately."

Rubric (self-assess)A strong rewrite interprets rather than restates ("The 4-point difference is consistent with a benefit from the new method, though the effect is modest"); calibrates ("is consistent with" / "may," not "proves"); bounds the claim (one semester, two sections, ~30 students each, single instructor possibly confounded); and states limitations and a proportionate next step ("Section-level confounds — instructor, time of day, cohort — cannot be ruled out with two sections; a multi-section, multi-instructor trial would be needed before recommending broad adoption."). It should *not* say "all instructors should adopt it immediately" (§13.6).

B4. Rewrite this buried-purpose Introduction as a funnel (context → gap → what the study does), in three or four sentences.

"Water quality is very important for public health. There are many contaminants that can be found in water. Heavy metals are one type of contaminant. Lead is a heavy metal. Lead can cause health problems. Many methods exist to remove lead. In this study, we test a filter."

Rubric (self-assess)A strong rewrite compresses the generic context to one sentence, names a specific gap, and states exactly what the study does. Example: "Lead contamination in drinking water remains a public-health problem, especially in older housing with lead service lines. Low-cost point-of-use filters are widely sold, but few have been independently tested against the EPA action level under realistic flow rates. This study measures lead removal by [filter] across a range of inlet concentrations and flow rates, and compares it to the manufacturer's claim." Your version should not spend six sentences on "lead is bad" (§13.3).

B5. Convert this academic-ordered opening into a workplace executive summary for a director who needs to decide. Lead with the recommendation; demote the method.

"Over the past quarter we evaluated our incident-response process by reviewing 47 incidents from the last year, interviewing eight on-call engineers, and benchmarking our metrics against three peer companies. We analyzed mean time to detect and mean time to resolve, categorized root causes, and assessed our alerting coverage. After this analysis, we found that alerting gaps were the leading cause of slow detection, and we recommend investing in expanded monitoring."

Rubric (self-assess)A strong rewrite opens with the recommendation and the ask: "We recommend investing ~$X in expanded monitoring this quarter. Alerting gaps were the leading cause of slow incident detection — responsible for [N] of 47 incidents and adding a median [M] minutes to detection time. [One-line of the next two findings.] We request approval by [date]." The methodology (47 incidents, eight interviews, three benchmarks) moves to a "How we found this" line or an appendix. The director should see the recommendation in sentence one (§13.8).

B6. The following sentence appears in a Results section. Decide whether it should stay, be cut, or be moved to the Discussion — then rewrite the section's handling of it accordingly.

"Figure 4 shows the expected decline in performance, which occurred because the cache was being invalidated too frequently, a problem that future work should address."

Rubric (self-assess)Split it. The *observation* stays in Results, stripped of interpretation: "Figure 4 shows performance declined by X% as request rate increased." The word "expected" (imports hypothesis), the causal claim "because the cache was being invalidated too frequently," and the recommendation "future work should address" all move to the **Discussion**, where you can argue the cause and propose next steps. One sentence currently does three jobs in the wrong section; separate the observation from the explanation from the recommendation (§13.5–13.6).

Part C — Write This ⭐⭐–⭐⭐⭐

Produce the document the scenario calls for.

C1. You ran a simple experiment (real or invented): measuring how the bounce height of a ball depends on the height it's dropped from, across five drop heights, three trials each. Write a complete Results section (4–6 sentences) — observations only, with numbers, a figure pointer, and zero interpretation. Then write a separate one-paragraph Discussion that interprets the same data, calibrates its language, and states one limitation. The exercise is to feel the boundary between the two.

Rubric (self-assess)Your Results contains only observations (heights, the trend, a fit or a figure pointer) and no judgment or causal words. Your Discussion interprets ("the roughly linear relationship is consistent with…"), uses calibrated verbs, and names a limitation (air resistance, measurement precision, single ball/surface). Acid test: could a skeptic who disagrees with your interpretation still accept every sentence of your Results? If yes, the boundary is clean (§13.5–13.6).

C2. Write a structured abstract (150–250 words) for a study of your choice (invent the details). Hit all four moves: purpose/gap, method, key results with numbers, conclusion. Then check: could a reader who reads only your abstract state what you found and how far it generalizes?

Rubric (self-assess)Strong abstracts (a) open with the gap, not generic context; (b) state the method in one or two sentences; (c) give the actual numerical result; (d) end with a calibrated conclusion and, ideally, a one-clause limitation. If any sentence could be deleted without losing information (e.g., "the results are discussed"), cut it. The abstract must stand alone (§13.7).

C3. Take a process you know well (making coffee, deploying code, running a PCR, training a model — anything) and write its Methods section as if for a report: past tense, every relevant parameter specified, ordered by execution, written so a competent stranger could reproduce it. Then hand it to someone (or imagine a skeptic) and mark every place they'd be stuck. Revise until there are no marks.

Rubric (self-assess)Reproducibility is the only standard. Every quantity, time, setting, and tool that affects the outcome is named; the order is followable; it documents what you *did* (past tense) rather than instructing what one *should* do. If a reader would have to ask you a single question to repeat it, that step is underspecified (§13.4).

C4. ⭐⭐⭐ Write a one-page workplace technical report (executive summary + scannable findings + a pointer to appended detail) recommending a decision in a scenario you invent (a tool to buy, a process to change, a hire to make). Lead with the recommendation and the ask-with-deadline; keep the methodology to a single line or an appendix note.

Rubric (self-assess)Sentence one is the recommendation. The opening paragraph stands alone — a busy reader could act on it without reading further. Findings are scannable (list or small table). Methodology is demoted, not deleted. There is a clear action and deadline. If the recommendation isn't visible in the first two sentences, restructure (§13.8).

Part D — Synthesis & Critical Thinking ⭐⭐⭐

D1. Find the flaw. A colleague argues: "I don't need to separate Results and Discussion — it's clearer to explain each number right when I present it, so the reader doesn't have to flip back and forth." Make the strongest case for their position, then explain why the convention nonetheless holds. When (if ever) is a merged Results-and-Discussion section legitimate?

DiscussionSteelman: for a result-by-result paper where each finding's meaning is tightly local, interleaving can reduce cognitive load, and indeed some fields *do* use a combined "Results and Discussion" section. The counter: separation lets the reader evaluate your evidence *before* your interpretation, so they can judge whether your reading of the data is warranted rather than absorbing it pre-digested; it also protects you, because stating the bare finding first forces you to check that it really supports your interpretation (§13.5). Legitimate merge: when a venue's conventions call for it *and* each result's interpretation is genuinely inseparable and local — but even then, within each merged unit, the observation should be stated before the spin on it.

D2. Translate for three audiences. You found that a new database index cut query latency by 60% but increased write latency by 15% and added 4 GB of storage. Write the one key finding three ways: (a) one sentence for the Results section of a technical report (observation only); (b) one sentence for an executive summary to an engineering director (recommendation-oriented); (c) one sentence for a non-technical stakeholder who just wants to know if the app will feel faster.

Rubric (self-assess)(a) Pure observation, no recommendation: "The new index reduced median read latency by 60% (220 ms → 88 ms) while increasing median write latency by 15% and adding 4 GB of storage." (b) Leads to a decision: "Recommend adding the index: it cuts read latency 60% for a 15% write-latency cost and 4 GB — a clear win for our read-heavy workload." (c) Plain and outcome-focused: "Pages that load data will feel noticeably faster; saving changes will be a hair slower, but not enough to notice." Same finding, three registers — the audience principle ([Ch 2](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-02-audience/index.md)) over the genre boundaries of this chapter.

D3. The chapter claims "writing the report is part of the science, not its packaging" and that you may discover a gap in your reasoning only when you try to write it down. Describe a concrete situation in your own field where drafting one of the four sections (Methods, Results, Discussion, Introduction) would force you to confront something you didn't realize you didn't know. Connect it to the Chapter 1 thesis that writing is thinking.

DiscussionStrong answers name a specific section and a specific discovery: drafting **Methods** reveals you can't reconstruct a setting you didn't log (a rigor gap); drafting the **Discussion** reveals your data are equally consistent with a rival explanation you'd ignored (a reasoning gap); drafting the **Introduction**'s gap statement reveals the question was already answered by prior work, or was never well-posed. The link to [Ch 1](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-01-why-writing-matters/index.md): the sentence forces a precision the vague mental model let you skip — "if you can't write it clearly, you don't understand it yet." The report isn't reporting finished thinking; it's where some of the thinking finishes.

Part M — Mixed Practice (Interleaved) ⭐⭐–⭐⭐⭐

These mix this chapter with earlier ones — you must choose the right tool.

M1. A draft section is a wall of ten dense paragraphs with the heading "Discussion." A reader can't find anything. Drawing on Chapter 4 (structure) and this chapter, name two distinct fixes — one structural (Ch 4) and one genre-specific (Ch 13).

Answer[Ch 4](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-04-structure/index.md) fix: add **informative subheaders and topic sentences** so a scanner can navigate (e.g., "Mechanism," "Comparison to prior work," "Limitations"), and lead each paragraph with its point. Ch 13 fix: check the section is actually *discussing*, not restating Results, and that it isn't overclaiming — and consider whether some content (bare observations) drifted in from Results and should move out. Structure (findability) and genre discipline (right content, calibrated) are different problems; this passage has both (§13.6, [Ch 4](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-04-structure/index.md)).

M2. You're revising a report and you spot the sentence "Utilization of the aforementioned methodology was undertaken in order to ascertain the optimal parameters." Which chapters' tools apply, and what's the rewrite?

Answer**[Chapter 3](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-03-clarity/index.md)** (clarity) and **[Chapter 6](../../part-02-building-blocks/chapter-06-sentences/index.md)** (conciseness/nominalizations): kill the nominalization ("utilization … was undertaken" → "we used"), drop "aforementioned" and "in order to," and prefer plain verbs. Rewrite: "We used this method to find the best parameters." If it's in Methods, "this method was used to determine the best parameters" is also fine (passive acceptable in Methods, §13.4). The genre (Ch 13) tells you *where* the sentence goes; clarity ([Ch 3](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-03-clarity/index.md)/6) tells you how to write it.

M3. A teammate's Results section reads well and flows, but when you reverse-outline it (Chapter 4 technique), the points are: "we found X / which means the system is robust / and therefore we should deploy it / X was 3× baseline." Diagnose using both the reverse-outline tool and this chapter's section boundaries.

AnswerThe reverse outline exposes that three of the four "points" don't belong in Results: "which means the system is robust" (interpretation → Discussion), "therefore we should deploy" (recommendation → Discussion or executive summary), leaving only "we found X / X was 3× baseline" as actual Results. The section reads smoothly but violates the Results/Discussion boundary (§13.5). Reverse-outlining ([Ch 4](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-04-structure/index.md)) is a great way to *catch* editorializing, because it strips the prose and shows each sentence's true job.

M4. You must write up the same study twice: once as a lab report for a course, once as a technical brief for the company that funded it. Using Chapter 2 (audience) and §13.8, list the three biggest structural changes you'd make for the company version.

Answer(1) Add a **stand-alone executive summary** leading with the finding/recommendation and the action needed (BLUF). (2) **Demote the Methods** below the findings or into an appendix — the funder wants to act, not reproduce. (3) Make the findings **scannable** (summary list or table) and add a clear **recommendation with a decision/deadline**. The science is identical; the *order and emphasis* change because the reader changed from examiner to decision-maker ([Ch 2](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-02-audience/index.md), §13.8).

M5. ⭐⭐⭐ A single sentence: "The data clearly show that, as we predicted, the treatment was highly effective, which proves our hypothesis and means the protocol should be adopted across all clinics." Mark which part belongs in Results vs. Discussion, fix the editorializing, and calibrate the claim — using §13.5, §13.6, and Chapter 7's hedging/certainty ideas.

AnswerResults (cleaned): "The treatment group showed [X outcome] (specific number, statistic)." Everything else is Discussion, and over-strong: "clearly show" / "as we predicted" / "highly effective" / "proves our hypothesis" / "means … all clinics." Calibrated Discussion: "These results are consistent with our hypothesis that the treatment improves [outcome]; the effect was [modest/large, quantified]. Adoption beyond this setting would require testing in [other clinic types/populations]." [Ch 7](../../part-02-building-blocks/chapter-07-word-choice-tone-voice/index.md)'s certainty vocabulary is the tool: match "is consistent with" to single-study evidence, reserve "proves" for what genuinely earns it (§13.6).

Part E — Extension ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (optional, Deep Dive)

E1. Find a real, published, open-access paper in your field. Photocopy or print its Results and Discussion sections and highlight every sentence in the Results that drifts toward interpretation (you'll often find some — even published papers leak). Then check the Discussion for any claim that the Results don't support. Write a one-paragraph critique as if you were a peer reviewer, using this chapter's vocabulary (editorializing, overclaiming, calibration, limitations).

GuidanceThis is the most valuable exercise in the set, because it shows that even published work isn't perfectly clean and trains your eye on real prose. A strong critique cites specific sentences, names the exact failure (e.g., "the phrase 'as expected' in the Results imports the hypothesis"), and is constructive. Notice also what the *good* papers do — calibrated verbs, explicit limitations — and steal those moves.

E2. Take a research finding from the news (a "study shows X" headline) and trace the overclaiming chain: find the press release, then (if you can) the actual paper's Discussion. Where did the calibrated scientific claim ("is consistent with," "in this sample") become the absolute popular claim ("proves," "everyone should")? Write a short analysis of where, and how, the calibration was lost — and which Chapter 38 (ethics) issues this raises.

GuidanceThe pattern is almost universal: the paper says "suggests," the press release says "shows," the headline says "proves." A strong analysis pinpoints the step where the hedge dropped and connects it to the responsibility theme — clear, confident writing can sell an overclaim, so calibration is an ethical duty, not just a stylistic nicety (preview of [Ch 38](../../part-08-synthesis/chapter-38-ethics-responsibility/index.md)). Ties §13.6 to the dark-side-of-clarity argument.

Selected solutions and rubrics: appendices/answers-to-selected.md. For open-ended tasks, use the self-assessment rubrics above. If you can't yet tell whether your own Results section editorializes, re-read §13.5 and redo B1 before moving on.

Back to: Chapter 13 · Quiz · Key Takeaways