Academic Skills Advice
Activity
Assessing Reports
Read the following 3 report extracts, thinking about which you prefer and why. Don’t worry about understanding the technical processes – ask yourself which writing style is more accessible? How are the results presented? What type of language is used?
Extract 1:
Time-independence of distributions, indicative of stable flow patterns in the packed bed, occurred in all experiments, confirming most previous liquid distribution work. The degree of dependence of this pattern on bed structure and/or production of wetted paths through the packing by randomly moving particles of the initial liquid is of interest, as in any specified packing arrangement, complete bed overload by high liquid flow-rate (pre-flooding) might be expected to result in alteration of a flow-pattern, dependent on which paths through the packing were wetted, while changes in bed structure might result from re-packing or ‘stirring’ the bed. Liquid-spread measurements by salt tracer techniques were made before and after either packed-bed pre-flooding or structure changing by stirring (utilizing ½ inch rings); other conditions, packed height and liquid rate, being maintained constant. The effect of re-packing on flow pattern stability was far in excess of that of pre-flooding. Hence flow pattern stability is determined mainly by bed structure.
Extract 2:
All our experiments showed that the distributions did not depend on time. This has been shown by most previous work on liquid distribution, and it suggests that the flow pattern in the packed bed is stable.
We thought it would be interesting to know to what extent it depends on the random movement of the initial liquid particles making wetted paths through the packing. In any given packing arrangement, re-packing or ‘stirring’ might be expected to change the structure of the bed; complete over-loading of the bed with a high liquid flow-rate (pre-flooding) might be expected to alter a flow pattern, depending on which paths through the pattern were wetted.
So we used salt tracer methods to measure liquid spread before and after stirring (using ½ inch rings) and before and after pre-flooding. Other conditions – packed height and liquid rate – were kept constant. Both stirring and pre-flooding affected the stable flow pattern (1) but stirring had much greater effect than pre-flooding. We conclude, therefore, that the structure of the bed is mainly responsible for the stable flow pattern.
Extract 3:
All the experiments showed the distributions to be time-independent. This has been noted by most previous workers on liquid distribution. It indicates the existence of a stable flow pattern in the packed bed. This flow pattern may be dependent on two factors. The first is bed structure, the second is purely random movement of the initial liquid particles producing wetted paths through the packing. It is of interest to determine to what extent flow pattern is dependent on these two factors. For a given arrangement of packing it could be expected that overloading of the bed by a liquid flow-rate (pre-flooding) would alter a flow pattern. For the same arrangement, repacking or ‘stirring’ the bed would be expected to cause changes in the structure of the bed. Liquid-spread measurements were undertaken to test this. They were carried out before and after either pre-flooding the packed bed or changing the bed structure by stirring. Half-inch rings were utilized for the latter purpose. Other conditions, namely packing height and liquid rate, were kept constant. Salt tracer experiments were used. Both pre-flooding and stirring influenced the stable flow pattern. The effect of re-packing, however, was substantially greater than that of pre-flooding. This means that stable flow pattern is determined mainly by bed structure.
The Verdict
Extract 1:
This was the most difficult of the three reports to read.
The convoluted writing was the main problem. E.g. in sentence 2 there are 5 clauses, totalling 75 words. This made the meaning of the sentence difficult to unpick and it would have been better to break this into two or three separate parts.
The problem with the sentence constructions was also compounded by massing all the information into just one paragraph.
There was ambiguity in the writing that brought into question the validity of the conclusion reached. Note, the contrast between the tentative use of the word ‘might’, and the definite final sentence ‘hence flow pattern stability is determined mainly by bed structure’.
There was also no sense of ‘ownership’ of the writing. E.g. it was not obvious who had conducted the experiment. Was it the writer; or was it someone else?
Extract 2:
Report B is written in an ‘active’ voice. It gets straight to the point and the main conclusion is shown in the first three sentences.
It is easy to read because of the structure and the language used.
In terms of structure, the ‘shape’ is cyclical: the point made in the first paragraph is repeated and explained in the third paragraph. It is also broken into three paragraphs which divide ideas into easy to read chunks.
It also connects closely to the spoken word. It is written in the ‘second person’ (‘our’; ‘we’). This gives a sense of presence of the writers and their ownership – and responsibility - of the experiment and the conclusions reached. However, check your brief to see if you should be writing in this or the third person. It also uses more direct languagee.g. ‘used’, compared to the more ambiguous term ‘utilized’.
Extract 3:
This style of report is written in a ‘passive’ voice and is typical of many reports in science and engineering.
Whereas Extract 2 breaks up the text into short, readable paragraphs, Extract 3 is presented in one paragraph, which makes it more time-consuming to read.
The concluding point of the experiment in Extract 3 is left to the end, compared to both the start and finish of Extract 2.
E: : 01274 236849@UniBradSkills
Has this resource helped? Find more at