Malik Quow 

April 2, 2022 

Professor Pamela Stemberg 

Technical Writing ENG 202 

  Rhetorical Analysis of Lab Reports  

     Within this Rhetorical analysis of lab reports, we will be discussing the similarities and differences of both lab reports. Both reports are about building management when building buildings in certain environments. Lab reports are evaluated based on eight different criteria. These criteria include, title, abstract, materials and methods, introduction, results, discussion, conclusion, references and appendix. 

TITLE: 

        The titles of both reports are “Engineering risk management in performance-based building environments” and “Hotel Construction Management considering Sustainability Architecture and Environmental Issues”. Both lab reports are easy to read and understand. There’s not much of a difference in each title, both provide enough information for the reader to understand what the report will be about.

ABSTRACT: 

         The abstract of  “Engineering risk management in performance-based building environments” gives a brief analysis of stakeholders and how they seek explicit performance and risk information on construction pro- jects. In addition the abstract of this report does give a well structured sentence on what the report is going to be about. It states “ This paper describes the conceptual background and the methodologies undertaken to design and develop a management framework that enables recognition of the conformity assessment results of building projects.” In our second report “Hotel Construction Management considering Sustainability Architecture and Environmental Issues”, it doesn’t label it abstract but it does give us a brief paragraph of what the report will be about. This paragraph does give enough information about the report and also includes brief information about data/results that they had during their lab. 

INTRODUCTION:
              In our first report “Engineering risk management in performance-based building environments” the introduction was short and gave the reader information about the three influent and interrelated conceptual approaches. I feel as if this introduction lacked enough information and only focused on what the reader should expect from the report instead of telling what the report is about. In our second report “Hotel Construction Management considering Sustainability Architecture and Environmental Issues”, the first half of the introduction was solely dedicated to the background of the development of Sustainability and sustainability in today’s society. Followed up by a very descriptive paragraph on Sustainable Development. When it comes to this introduction it was very detailed and gave information for the reader to understand the purpose of this lab report. However, I do believe the second section of the introduction was not needed because there was already enough information given in the first half of the paragraph on Sustainable Development. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

              In the first report the authors did label their materials and methods section, but it was easy to understand what was being presented in this section. The author broke their “materials and methods” page into two different groups and also gave adequate data to back up their experiment and research. Not to mention, they labeled their data so it would be easy for the reader to go back and reference or look at. In our second report the methods section gives us a brief paragraph on what materials were used and what their method is. Followed up by a step by step outline on how they completed their methods. This section was very well organized and was through with the steps given. Therefore making it easy for the readers to complete the experiment themselves. 

RESULTS: 

           Results from the first report showed data tables and had clear results of the experiment. In addition, it had a column that provided the key principles of the results. This result section was also very organized and gave an answer for the hypothesis of the experiment. In the second report it was more tables and data, with little to no explanation of the data being shown. To add, the results were very overwhelming and hard to understand. 

DISCUSSION: 

           The first lab report did not have a discussion page. However the author did briefly explain the experiment and the significance of the lab report in the abstract. The author should have separated the two, this would have made the lab report more understandable. In the second report the author named their discussion section as “Findings”. In this section they covered the results of the lab and gave a detailed account on what happened in the experiment. Their discussion section was clear and summed up their lab report very well. 

CONCLUSION:

             Lab report number one conclusion summed up the most important parts of the report. The author also noted that several other authors have identified the need for their lab experiment. 

Lab report two gave a very detailed conclusion that gave information on new upcoming findings in Sustainable Development. Also, they explained why their findings were important and needed to be used when considering constructing a new building in an area with poor environmental issues. 

REFERENCES:  

Lab #1

Almeida N. M., Sousa V., Dias L. A., Branco F.(2015).Engineering risk management in    performance-based building environments.  Journal of Civil Engineering & Management, 21(2), 218-230.http://hostos.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=100750938&site=ehost-live

Kadaei S., Shayesteh S., Seyedeh M., Majidi M., Asaee Q., Mehr H. H.(2021).Article. HotelConstruction Management considering Sustainability Architecture and Environmental Issues, 13(1), 1-13.https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sv/

Lab #2