Randy Culcay

Created: 10/11/2020

Updated: 12/16/2020

In both reports, I read had all eight elements in chapter 19. The title, abstract introduction, material/ methods, results, discussions, conclusions, and references are in both Reports. The titles of both reports are different in length. The title “Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty” is very long. Still, it is understandable to help researchers with the information they need. The other lab report’s title for “Lactation Ketoacidosis: A Systematic Review of Case Reports” is shorter, straight forward about the goal of research. A good lab report title shows the correlation between goal and outcome, so the reader understands the report’s topic before reading it. These reports are similar in the format of the author’s name and who the authors are affiliated with. The author’s formatting in both reports listing the names of authors with a number that relates to the numbers below the author’s list, naming the places the authors are affiliated with. In this essay the report “Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty” will be called “the Animal Report” due to its length. The same goes for the other lab report title “Lactation Ketoacidosis: A Systematic Review of Case Reports”, which now will be called “The Lactation Ketoacidosis report”. In the abstract, both reports are different in the placement of information. The animal report shows the relationships between the participants of the experiment demographic (age, gender, and interest) and the report’s results in graphs. The reader understands information better through pictures and graphs. It is hard to understand results through the format in Lactation Ketoacidosis. It lists the results in text and not through graphs, which makes it harder to understand results. Both the experiment has the same information format of cause and effect, the report’s goals, and report results in the introduction. Both reports have the same opening format, but in the animal, report is more detailed about how the experiment is conducted and ended with a closing sentence. The lactation ketoacidosis report instead ends on supportive information of their statement in the report and has few details about the goal but not how its conducted. The method and material in the animal report are written in a paragraph. While the lactation ketoacidosis report is written in sections and labels each paragraph as Search and Strategy, Study Selection and Data Extraction, and Statistical Analysis. Other than the sectioning, both contain the information needed in the method and materials section. Which includes useful information on the method/ materials used, any problem had during the research. The results of both experiments were different. The lactation ketoacidosis report listed the data found first, then they started to talk about the data and how it helps. But in the Animal report, the results flowed nicer since there is an introduction and explanation for each graph or datasheet after it was presented in the lab report (pg 4 -13). The animal report had a better flow to it since it explained results while shown. Discussion/ recommendation are similar in context but not in format. The animal report does not have a conclusion, but the discussion covers the whole report nicely. The recommendation is in both discussion reports. In the conclusion part of the animal report has no conclusion but is mentioned in the last sentence of discussion. The lactation ketoacidosis report had a conclusion but did not cover the whole and only focused on the report results. Both reports showed many similarities and differences because of the report’s subject and where the report came from.

Title.

Both reports are different in title format; the amount of information in the title “Attitudes toward animals, and how species and purpose affect animal research justifiability, among undergraduate students and faculty” is long and detailed. Report’s title is excellent to help readers look for specific information if explained well. In the Lactation Ketoacidosis research, the title was short, straight forward about the report’s goal. It could have been a little longer with explaining the reasoning of research. It would help people find this report that is interested in helping with this rare condition of breastfeeding. In the Animal research report and Lactations Ketoacidosis report, both authors listed horizontally with semicolons and numbers next to them. The number relates to the list right under authors about the association the authors are a part of. Both organizations’ list is listed vertically, with the top number being one and counting down the list. The author is written differently in the lactation ketoacidosis report by putting it in Alphabetical order. The dates published in both pieces are different. Attitudes towards animals report it is month, date, then year published, written this way in America. The lactation ketoacidosis report had it as day, month. The year, when written like this, it is usually from outside America. How the date written shows how other countries have different formatting. As for the From, Publisher, Doc. Type, Length, Lexile measure, and DOI are all the same between both reports in format. The Attitude towards Animal reports has a different placement on the left margin of the page. Both pieces both had many similarities and differences in the country’s format and order of information.

Abstract.

Both Reports have similar approaches to how they gave the information in the abstract. The Attitudes toward animals report are comprehensive in it writing what happens in the subject. The abstract goes over these reports’ goals and hypotheses on results, the experiment’s results, setting, people who participated, and how they kept the control variables controlled. The most interesting of this list was how they broke up the participants’ groups, such as male vs. female, faculty vs. students, and focus on factors like majors and vegans. It brings in the reader instead of reading the number on a chart. End of the Abstract, writers bring more detail about the research and how it supports their claim at the beginning of the abstract. The lactation ketoacidosis report had the same transitions in the abstract (cause and effect, goals, results of the experiment). But it is different from the Animal report from being short, brief, and somewhat challenging to read; it is a science report about the body. In the beginning, the problem of the report is one sentence. Next, writers wrote the report’s goal; the end listed the detail they are looking for in semicolons. The lactation ketoacidosis report’s data are presented as a percent of how common each side effect. These side effects are listed with semicolons. In report results (ending of abstract) end to repeat the same thing in the first sentence. In both reports, the abstract had the same structure following cause and effect, goals, and experiment results, but differed in how information is given. In the animal report, there are relations between groups with the report results that help the reader understand what is going on. The lactation ketoacidosis report kept listing off the results, which is understandable by summarizing the story. The information is okay because one is based on people’s (multiple) perspectives based on a condition(singular).

Introduction.

Both reports have the same format in the introduction, starting with a briefing about the topic. The animal report did well by talking about the relationship between animals and humans and how they depend on one another. Understanding the problem and using the experiment to prove the problem, which the animal report did well by talking about experiments on animals, how people view those experiments in a survey. Then an explanation of how the research in the report can address the problem. The reports’ goal comes after, followed by the meaning of what information they are looking for to alleviate the problem. Lastly, they both elaborate on the experiment. There are also differences in both report’s introduction; the animal lab report explains research on the relationship in the participant’s gender, age, and interest. The ending of the animal reports introduction talks about the survey’s question for the experiment. Lactation Ketoacidosis’s report has more examples of the research than explaining an experiment and what they’re looking for to find similar symptoms and treatments to a condition that doesn’t have strict guidelines to treat it. Another difference is the animal report has a closing sentence that brings the introduction into a full loop with the goal. Both reports have a similar openings format, but the Attitudes toward animal’s report has more detail of the report’s research and ends with stating the beginning of the intro.

Material and Methods.

The Material and methods section of both reports have the same format of how the information is given. The animal report would go over the amount of who they surveyed and the demographic such as age, gender, major of the student in college, year in college, and People who took it and did not show how the is not a bias report. Lactation Ketoacidosis’s format in method and materials report is broken into smaller paragraphs labeled by the Search Strategy, Study Selection and Data Extraction (filtering data), and Statistical Analysis. All necessary to talk about what they were searching for and what made a lab report creditable to use. Lactation ketoacidosis report and Attitudes toward animals report are similar in the layout of the method and material sections. The animal report talked about the different who took the survey on how and it was distributed. In contrast, the lactation ketoacidosis report format is distinct by separating paragraphs and labeling each step they did to collect their information about Lactation Ketoacidosis through reports.

Results.

The format of results in both reports is different but gives out the information needed to explain the experiment’s problem. In the Attitudes toward animals report’s structure, the results are labeled about the questions its referring to and the method of questioning to find results. Throughout the animal report’s result, there are introductions and explanations around the data tables and graphs to better understand the results. The lactation ketoacidosis report differs from the animal report in format, an introduction about how many lab reports were used to help find symptom and treatment, then follows some data tables of creditable information (common symptom and treatments). Labeling was also used in this report, breaking apart each paragraph into topics about the results (Characteristics and Clinical Presentation of the Mothers, Biochemical Characteristics of the Mothers, Precipitating Factors, Treatment, Breastfeeding, and Prognosis). Both reports have different formats in their results. Attitude towards animal report had a better flow because the introduction and information about results were around the data (graphs and tables). As for the lactation ketoacidosis report, the data results are listed then an explanation of data comes after.

Discussion.

Reports are both different in the discussions section cause of the placement of information but are similar features of a discussion in a lab report. In the animal report’s discussion format starts with the introduction of how the survey was conducted. Following is the problem of the report that the researcher wants to answer after is showing the results of the report in showing relation, which is good for the reader to understand data. The report will then lead with the report’s data and support to help statements by giving similar research done in other reports. For the lactation ketoacidosis report, an introduction about the condition leads with results and examples that better understand the condition. After the data/example is the report’s problem that the researcher wants to answer and the support backing up their statement. Lastly, a conclusion about the statement proofing the problem needs to be resolved. Both reports are similar in context but not in the placement of information. Also, the Attitudes toward animals report did not have a conclusion at the discussion, ending it on data that supports the statement. The recommendation is in discussion in both reports

Conclusion/ References.

The Attitudes toward animals report had no conclusion but explained at the ending of the discussion. The lactation ketoacidosis report has a conclusion, but it is not long. Only about two sentences and talks about the results. In both reports, the conclusion did not have enough effort to cover the report’s overall significance. For References, both reports have the references listed vertically and numbered. And both reports use MLA Citation for references.

All eight elements The Title, abstract introduction, material/ methods, Results, Discussions, conclusions, and References are in both reports and had many similarities and differences in the context and format of the report. Of where this report was written, and the report’s subject makes a difference to the format of the report. Neglecting that there are still similarities in reports