Bacteria Lab Reports Rhetorical Analysis
Fatima Moflehi
The City College of New York
ENGL 21007: Writing For Engineering
Crystal Rodwell
3/19/2024
When it comes to research it is important for writers to present their studies properly. Using different rhetorical strategies can help organize the findings and help make sure the work is communicated well to its readers. I have taken three lab reports that contain studies on different forms of bacterial contamination that introduced ways to either avoid or combat their effects. Using these three lab reports I will examine the similarities and differences of the reports formats and rhetorical choices in its title, abstract, introduction, methods and materials, results, discussions, conclusions, and references to show the varying approaches in each scientific study and see whether they meet the requirements of how these sections should be written. Within each report there are certain aspects that the report lacks in and some aspects that the report focuses on more thoroughly than the others.
Report Summaries
Lab report 1 is a study on how bacteria in foods can easily spread and contaminate its surrounding areas. The study examined a person who meal prepped a chicken contaminated with salmonella and lettuce. While preparing the meal the person did not incorporate proper food hygiene practices and ended up contaminating the surrounding areas of the kitchen with the salmonella bacteria. The results showed how easily bacteria from contaminated food can spread around the kitchen and how contaminants are unlikely to be removed until there’s a thorough clean of the area.
Lab report 2 dives into the findings of lotions contaminated with bacteria. During rehabilitation hospitals may use lotions or creams to help patients with massage or soft tissue
mobilization. Researchers studied a few unopened lotion containers along with 81 lotion containers used in 22 clinics in southeast Tennessee. The study found that unopened containers had no bacteria while ones in use 16 supported bacteria growth. These findings suggest the need for standardized protocols in hospitals when using lotions/creams so infections don’t spread.
Lab Report 3 is on a study that focuses on mast cells and IBS bacteria that contribute to IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) symptoms and figure out how it causes it. The experiment used two mice with IBS-like symptoms and found that the mouse with IBS-like gut bacteria had more mast cells in its colon compared to the mouse with healthy gut bacteria. They also found that IBS bacteria were often found near mast cells. They further studied why and found out that mast cells receptors get stimulated by IBS bacteria and release a chemical called histamine. When histamine is released the chemical reacts in ways that contribute to gut problems/sensitivity in IBS. The results led to the idea of blocking mast cells receptors so that a chemical reaction does not occur and help reduce IBS effects.
Title and Abstract
Lab report 1’s title (Cross-contamination from raw chicken during meal preparation) used understandable words that helped convey the main objective of the report without suggesting other ideas. Because of this the title is well written and clear.
Lab report 2’s title ( Topical lotions utilized in outpatient rehabilitation clinics as a potential source of bacterial contamination) does not clearly convey the major focus of the study unlike lab report 1’s title . The lab reports study is on bacterial contamination caused from topical lotions but the title suggests it’s about topical lotions. The title however uses words that are understandable and familiar to readers.
Lab report 3’s title (Gut bacteria interact directly with colonic mast cells in a humanized mouse model of IBS) does not clearly convey the purpose of the study about IBS and its symptoms caused by gut bacteria. Also, unlike lab report 2, the title does not use language understandable and familiar to readers. “Humanized mouse model” for example, Most readers most likely wouldn’t know what a humanized mouse model is.
When it comes to abstracts, each of the three lab reports successfully stated the problem/question the study addressed as well as briefly and clearly stated how the results of the study shaped their answers.
Introductions
Lab report 1’s introduction reviewed research relevant to the study by mentioning studies on food preparation practices and stated the purpose and methods of the study as well as how it contributes to the field of food preparation.
Lab report 2’s introduction also reviewed research relevant to the study by mentioning multiple past documented research that experimented on the same topic as the lab report. They also successfully explained how the study contributes to the field by showing the importance of potential bacterial contamination from lotions/creams and even the importance of potential contamination from their bottles. The introduction also stated the purpose of the study and briefly described the methods used.
Lab report 3’s introduction similar to Lab report 1 and 2 reviewed relevant research and stated the purpose of the study and briefly described the methods used. However unlike the first two lab reports it did not explicitly mention how the study contributes to the field.
All three lab reports give a good introduction to their studies by mentioning background information and thoroughly mentioning their studies’ purpose.
Materials & Methods
Lab Report 1 mentions the materials used in the experiment as well as the method taken step-by-step with lots of detail. The measurements and information were also presented in a logical order. However it did not mention any problems encountered in the study or potential problems the study tried to avoid like biases. Also the rationale behind the chosen method of food handling techniques were not stated.
Lab report 2 also described the materials and equipment used and described the procedure very clearly for readers to understand. They also addressed the problems encountered, unlike lab report 1, as well as the solutions taken. They also included detailed measurements and presented all the information in a logical order.
Lab report 3 described the materials in detail as well as the equipment used but, like lab report 1, did not explain the rationale behind its measurements and also did not mention any problems encountered or any solutions.
Results
Lab report 1’s results summarized the data relevant to the question or hypothesis in great detail and focused on the data applicable to the argument without including irrelevant information. The text also emphasized important trends and patterns as well as providing graphics/images to show them.
Lab report 2’s result also summarized the data relevant to its study without mentioning irrelevant information. The result text also showed tables to present and emphasize patterns of data just like lab report 1.
Lab report 3’s was also the same as lab report 1 and 2 by presenting only relevant data and had graphics and tables to show data and textually explained them.
All three lab reports had similar structure to their results by using tables and images to show the experiment’s findings.
Discussion
Lab report 1s discussion addressed the question/hypothesis discussed in the introduction by elaborating on its findings. The text also presented explanations for the results obtained and discusses supportive data from the results and how it supports the argument of the study. It also commented on problematic results such as outliers and unexpected findings or limitations of the study and its results.
Lab report 2 also discussed similar ideas as lab report 1 but they also compared works from other researchers’ results.
Lab report 3s discussion is similar to lab report 1 and 2 but lacks in work comparisons from other research and does not discuss any negative aspects or problems from the study’s findings.
Conclusion & Acknowledgments
All three lab reports do not have a separate conclusion section. Also, Lab reports 1 and 3 do not share any acknowledgments. Lab report 2 however has an acknowledgment section and they acknowledged and thanked the people who conducted the study and the ones who supported the research.
References
All three lab reports referenced every source with full citations that included dates, authors, and links to the studies and information.
Overall the format of each lab report and the rhetorical strategies used to present each of their sections information were mostly well written and similar. Although some lacked in certain aspects compared to the other lab reports the studies were all very well organized and communicated clearly.
References:
-Iain Haysom and Kay Sharp (2004), Cross Contamination from raw chicken during meal preparation.
-Henry G. Spratt Jr, PhDa , David Levine, PT, PhD, DPTb , Julie Bage, PT, DPTb , David K. Giles, PhDa , and A. Grace Collier, BS (2017), Topical lotions utilized in outpatient rehabilitation clinics as a potential source of bacterial contamination
-Chiko Shimboria, Giada De Palmaa, Lauren Baerga , Jun Lua , Elena F. Verdua , David E. Reedb , Stephen Vannerb , Stephen M. Collinsa , and Premysl Bercik (2022) Gut bacteria interact directly with colonic mast cells in a humanized mouse model of IBS
