Quiz — Chapter 13: Lab Reports and Technical Reports

Target: 70%+ before moving on. Answers and explanations are hidden — attempt each before expanding.

Section 1 — Multiple Choice

1. IMRaD stands for: - A) Introduction, Method, Research, and Data - B) Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion - C) Inquiry, Materials, Review, and Decision - D) Introduction, Materials, Results, and Deduction

Answer**B.** Introduction (*why*), Methods (*what I did*), Results (*what I found*), Discussion (*what it means*) — the four core sections of an empirical report (§13.1–13.2). The others are invented.

2. Which question does the Methods section answer? - A) Why did you do this? - B) What did you find? - C) What exactly did you do (so I could reproduce it)? - D) What does it mean?

Answer**C.** Methods answers "what you did," and its standard is reproducibility — a competent peer should be able to repeat the work from the text alone. (A) is the Introduction, (B) is Results, (D) is the Discussion. (§13.4)

3. A sentence reads: "The coated samples performed excellently, clearly proving the coating's effectiveness." If this appears in the Results section, the problem is: - A) It's too short - B) It editorializes — it judges ("excellently") and interprets ("proving effectiveness") instead of reporting an observation - C) It uses the passive voice - D) Nothing is wrong; Results is where you say what the data show

Answer**B.** Results reports observations neutrally; "excellently" is a judgment and "proving the coating's effectiveness" is a causal interpretation — both belong in the Discussion. The clean Results version reports the actual retention numbers. (D) is the exact misconception this chapter targets. (§13.5)

4. The single best test for whether a Methods section is adequate is: - A) It is at least 300 words long - B) It uses the passive voice throughout - C) A competent person in the field could reproduce the work from the text alone - D) It lists all the equipment in a table

Answer**C.** Reproducibility is the entire standard (§13.4). Length (A), voice (B), and formatting (D) are incidental — a 300-word passive Methods section with a nice table can still be impossible to replicate if it omits a key parameter.

5. The two opposite failure modes of a Discussion section are: - A) Too long and too short - B) Restating the Results (no interpretation) and overclaiming (interpretation beyond the evidence) - C) Passive voice and active voice - D) Too many citations and too few citations

Answer**B.** A weak Discussion either just repeats the findings in new words (adds nothing) or stretches them into unsupported sweeping claims. A good one interprets, contextualizes, bounds the claim, and states limitations. (§13.6)

6. Which verb is appropriately calibrated for the conclusion of a single, modest study? - A) "Our results prove that…" - B) "Our results demonstrate conclusively that…" - C) "Our results are consistent with…" - D) "Our results establish beyond doubt that…"

Answer**C.** "Are consistent with" matches the strength of evidence a single study provides. "Prove," "demonstrate conclusively," and "establish beyond doubt" overclaim — a lone study rarely earns them. Calibrating language to evidence is the core Discussion discipline. (§13.6)

7. The Introduction is best structured as a funnel that goes: - A) Your finding → the method → the broad context - B) Broad context → the specific gap → what this study does - C) The conclusion → the limitations → the background - D) A list of every prior study, in chronological order

Answer**B.** Context (orient the reader) → gap (what's unknown) → response (what this study does). The fatal omission is usually the gap. (D) describes a literature dump, not an Introduction. (§13.3)

8. Compared with an academic lab report, a workplace technical report typically: - A) Removes all findings to save space - B) Leads with the recommendation/executive summary and demotes the methods to an appendix - C) Puts the methodology first and the recommendation last - D) Is always longer and more detailed

Answer**B.** The workplace report keeps IMRaD's four questions but reorders them BLUF-style for a decision-maker: recommendation first, methods demoted. (C) is the academic order, which buries the recommendation for a busy reader. (§13.8)

9. An abstract that says "the methods are described and the results are presented and discussed" fails because: - A) It is too informal - B) It describes the paper instead of delivering its actual content - C) It is missing citations - D) Abstracts should never mention methods

Answer**B.** For most readers the abstract *is* the paper; it must deliver the actual findings (with numbers) so it stands alone, not merely announce that findings exist. Same failure as a "summary" that's really a table of contents ([Ch 4](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-04-structure/index.md)). (§13.7)

10. Which sentence belongs in Results, not Discussion? - A) "The lower error rate suggests the new model generalizes better." - B) "Test-set error was 4.1% for the new model and 6.3% for the baseline." - C) "This improvement may be due to the larger training set." - D) "These results imply the approach is ready for production."

AnswerB. A bare observation with numbers — pure Results. (A) "suggests … generalizes better" interprets; (C) "may be due to" explains a cause; (D) "imply … ready for production" is an interpretive recommendation — all three are Discussion. (§13.5–13.6)

11. Why does drafting the Methods section sometimes count as doing science, per the chapter? - A) Because it's the longest section - B) Because trying to write it can reveal a step you didn't record carefully enough — a gap in your own rigor - C) Because reviewers only read the Methods - D) Because it must use the passive voice

Answer**B.** Writing forces precision; if you can't reconstruct a parameter to write it down, you've discovered you didn't record it well enough. This is the "writing is thinking" thesis ([Ch 1](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-01-why-writing-matters/index.md)) applied to the report. (§13.1)

12. In which order do experienced writers typically draft the sections? - A) Introduction first, Abstract second, then the rest in order - B) Abstract first (to plan), then Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion - C) Methods first, then Results, Discussion, Introduction — and the Abstract last - D) Discussion first, because it's the most important

Answer**C.** Draft the concrete parts first (Methods, Results), then the interpretive parts (Discussion, Introduction), and the Abstract dead last — you can't summarize a paper you haven't finished. This applies [Chapter 5](../../part-01-writing-is-thinking/chapter-05-writing-process/index.md)'s process to the genre. (§13.2)

Section 2 — True/False with Justification

For each, decide true or false and give a one-sentence reason.

T1. "A null result (no significant difference) doesn't belong in the Results section — there's nothing to report."

Answer**False.** A null result is still a finding and belongs in Results, reported as an observation ("accuracy did not differ between conditions, p = 0.61"). Whether the null is *meaningful* (a real absence of effect vs. an underpowered study) is a Discussion question. (§13.5)

T2. "Using the passive voice in the Methods section is always a sign of weak writing."

Answer**False.** In Methods, the passive ("the samples were heated to 400 °C") is conventional and often correct, because the actor is usually irrelevant and the sample belongs in the subject position. The real rule is "put the relevant thing in the subject," not "never use passive" — though a string of clunky passives is still bad writing in any section. (§13.4)

T3. "Stating your study's limitations weakens your paper and makes reviewers trust you less."

Answer**False** (the opposite is true). Openly stating limitations signals that you see your own work clearly and aren't overselling it; it does the skeptical reviewer's job for them honestly, which makes your actual claims *more* credible. A Discussion with no limitations reads as naïve or evasive. (§13.6)

T4. "Because IMRaD is a fixed convention, you must use exactly those four section headings in every report."

Answer**False.** IMRaD is a *family*: some fields merge Results and Discussion, split Methods into Materials and Procedure, or add a Limitations/Conclusions section. The four *questions* are near-universal; the exact *headings* vary by venue. Follow your specific format. (§13.2, §13.10)

T5. "An informative title can replace the abstract for most readers."

Answer**False** (but it points at a truth). The title and abstract do different jobs — the title is read by the most people and must be informative, but it can't deliver the findings the way an abstract does. The real point is that *both* are read far more than the body, so both must carry real information, not just describe. (§13.7)

Section 3 — Short Answer

S1. In one sentence each, state the question answered by Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.

Model answerIntroduction: *why* did you do this (and why should I care)? Methods: *what exactly* did you do (so I could reproduce it)? Results: *what* did you find (the observations)? Discussion: what does it *mean* (interpretation, significance, limits)? **Rubric:** all four mapped correctly, with Results = findings and Discussion = meaning kept distinct.

S2. Give three "tells" — words or phrases — that signal a Results sentence has drifted into editorializing.

Model answerJudgment adjectives/adverbs (*excellent, poor, surprisingly, impressively*); causal/claim verbs (*because, due to, proves, demonstrates, confirms, indicates*); and hypothesis-importing phrases (*as expected, surprisingly*). **Rubric:** any three from these categories; bonus for naming the category, not just the word.

S3. A friend's Methods section says they "trained a neural network on the dataset and got good accuracy." Name three pieces of information a reader needs that this sentence omits — and note which word doesn't belong in Methods at all.

Model answerOmitted: the model architecture; the dataset (which one, size, train/test split); the training details (hyperparameters, epochs, hardware, framework/version); the metric and how accuracy was computed. The phrase "**got good accuracy**" doesn't belong in Methods at all — it's a (vague, editorialized) *result*. **Rubric:** three plausible omissions plus identifying the result-in-Methods error. (§13.4)

S4. Explain, in two or three sentences, why a workplace technical report inverts the IMRaD order, citing the reader.

Model answerBecause its reader is a busy decision-maker who wants to act, not a peer reviewer evaluating evidence. So the report leads with the recommendation/executive summary (BLUF) and demotes the methods to an appendix, serving the decision-maker's need to decide quickly rather than the order in which the work was done. Same four questions, reordered by audience. **Rubric:** names the audience difference and the recommendation-first move. (§13.8)

Section 4 — Applied Scenario

AS1. Here is a complete (short) Results-and-Discussion passage with the two sections merged and tangled. Rewrite it as two clean, separate sections — a Results section with observations only, and a Discussion that interprets, calibrates, and states one limitation.

"We tested the new search ranking on 1,200 queries. It performed great — click-through rate rose from 18% to 24%, which clearly proves users prefer the new ranking and means we should roll it out to everyone immediately. Interestingly, dwell time also went up by 8%, confirming higher engagement, though this was only measured over one week."

Model answer + rubric**Results (observations only):** "Across 1,200 queries, click-through rate was 24% with the new ranking versus 18% with the baseline. Median dwell time was 8% higher with the new ranking. Measurements were collected over one week." (No "great," no "proves," no "confirming," no recommendation.) **Discussion (interpret, calibrate, limit):** "The higher click-through and dwell time are consistent with users preferring the new ranking, suggesting improved relevance. The effect is sizeable but was measured over only one week and may include novelty effects; a longer A/B test would be needed before a full rollout. These results support expanding the test, not an immediate launch to all users." **Rubric (4 points):** (1) Results contains only observations with numbers; (2) all judgment/causal words removed from Results; (3) Discussion uses calibrated verbs ("consistent with," "suggesting," not "proves/confirms"); (4) Discussion states the one-week limitation and a proportionate next step. 3–4 = solid; ≤2 = re-read §13.5–13.6 and redo.

Scoring & Next Steps

Score What it means Do next
< 50% Section boundaries aren't solid yet Re-read §13.1–13.6; redo Exercises B1 and the Section 4 scenario
50–70% You know the sections but blur Results/Discussion Redo Exercises B1, B3, and M5; re-read the threshold-concept box (§13.5)
70–85% Solid grasp — proceed Continue to Chapter 14 (Research Papers)
> 85% Strong — stretch yourself Try Exercises E1–E2 (critique a real published paper)

Back to: Chapter 13 · Exercises · Key Takeaways