Title:

Natasha effectively showed how each lab report demonstrated a title that fulfilled the requirements that were described by Markel and Serbel in the textbook.  First describing the requirements needed in order to create a title that follows the way mentioned in chapter 19 of “Technical Communications” then she stated what would have made the title more effective.  This was a perfect analysis of each of the two lab reports titles.

Abstract:

Similarly to the title Natasha thoroughly addressed what was needed to fulfill the requirements for an effective abstract.  Connecting each lab report to Markel’s strategies and demonstrating how they followed the same format.  Clearly showing how the first lab report followed the traditional route described in the textbook while the second decided to do something a little different.

Introduction:

The analysis of the introduction was clear and understandable, providing us with again what is needed from a lab report in order to follow Markel’s format.  Then proceeds to show how the first lab report used a different method.  I think you could have added a little more description as to why Almatar decided to deviate from the textbook but it still effectively captured the thought process behind the writer.  I believe when analysing the second lab report you detailed more of why the writer deviated from the traditional method.

Means and Materials:

I think that adding specifics into your analysis was perfect.  Allowing us to know where this lab report correctly demonstrated the requirements and where it falters.  The conclusion to this analysis was very good as well, showing an overview as to how these lab reports, although sometimes deviated, still made for an effective title, abstract, introduction, means and methods.