Title of Paper Reviewed: Which Gas Preserves Food Best?

Author Name: Sukhvir Singh

Reviewer’s Name: Fraylin Sanchez

1. What sections does the lab report include? What, if any, sections are missing?

The lab report includes all the major sections except the discussion section. The sections that are included are the title, abstract, introduction, materials (the methods is kind of included in the introduction), results, conclusion, and reference. You stated what was supposed to be in the discussion section in your results section. Simply state your results in the results section, and go into detail in the discussion section.

• Is the lab report written in active voice, passive voice, or a mixture? Identify an example of each voice the lab report uses.

The lab report is written in active voice. An example of this is when you state, “We tried the experiment for 1 week and we didn’t find anything. So, we had to re-do the whole experiment but now the time we have to wait for is 2 weeks.”

• How well does the introduction provide context and significance for the experiment? What details help you better understand the experiment? Where do you need more details? Are there any details that could be eliminated?

The introduction does an excellent job at providing context for the experiment and its significance. This experiment is important because as you stated in your report, it is an experiment to learn how to preserve food the longest. You clearly state what the purpose is, and why it is important. It will prevent waste of food and money and also help eliminate world hunger. I would need more details in part of using gases to preserve food. I don’t think this type of gases are easily accessible by everyone which can make the process harder.

• Identify the hypothesis.

I believe Nitrogen will preserve the food the longest and oxygen will make them go bad faster.

• How ethically is this written? In other words, how much does the author stick to reporting observable results? Identify any places where the author includes subjectivity/personal reflections.

The author really sticks to reporting observable results in this report. He describes the texture and odor of each of the materials that were tested. You clearly describe each one of them and the way they look, smell, and even taste. This makes the reader get a vivid image of what the food looks like.

• How well does the methods/materials section persuade the reader that the chosen methodology and materials are appropriate and valid for testing the hypothesis, and will lead to credible and valid results? Are there any places in the methods/materials section that you need more clarity?

I believe that this section needs work to be done. You need to do a better job stating how the gasses will be collected using the balloons and how you will insert these gases inside of the bags. I also believe that the materials selected for this experiment don’t really have a reason to be preserve. Hamburger for example is usually cook to be eaten the same day. Raw meat would be a better material in my opinion.

• Does the results section interpret the data, or stick to solely reporting it? Identify any areas where the results section interprets the data.

The result section mostly sticks to reporting the data. An instant where you interpret the data is when you say, “So, the result is that regular air works well but, the nitrogen worked a little bit better but that requires having nitrogen easily available to use.

• Does the results section include any visual representations of the data? Would a visual representation be useful, or is the data clear enough without?

Not visual representation is included. In my opinion it can be helpful because people can see the mold and the way the food looks, but the way you described it makes it clear enough without visual representation.

• Does the discussion section interpret the results clearly? According to the author, how do the results relate to the original hypothesis? Where could more explanation be useful?

The discussion section is missing. In your conclusion you go into details about stuff that should be part of the discussion section. Make sure to revise your report and change your conclusion to a summary of the report and include a discussion section that discusses the results obtained.

1. Identify 2 Strengths, and 2 areas for improvement and ask 1 question about the content written.

2 Strengths

• I feel you do a great job in your results section as it makes the reader get a vivid image of what you describe.
• You explain the purpose of performing this experiment and the impact it can have in the world.

2 areas for improvement

• Divide your conclusion and create your discussion section. Make a proper discussion section and read the website the professor provided to check what should be included in each section to make sure your abstract and conclusion are revised.
• Change your hypothesis from the abstract into your introduction.

One question I have for you is, why do you think finding a better way to preserve food will help eliminate world hunger?