Q5: This question pertains to WLO3. Main task: Assess the comparative strengths of three technical writing samples. Three samples of technical writing have been provided to you on canvas under Writing and Learning Objective. These three samples contain introductions describing the context of a prior version of Lab 3 (the same as the results/discussion sections you reviewed as part of Lab 1). These three writing samples should be considered small components of a larger technical lab report or academic paper. Critique the three writing samples and compare their efficacy in the context of technical writing learning outcome 3 (WLO3) dimensions discussed in class (and listed below, for your reference). Purpose: To gain perspective on what works, and what doesn't, in technical writing. WLO3: Be able to accurately convey the context and novelty of your work [Introduction section]. General introduction to the topic provided, followed by a more in-depth background related to your work/experiment (e.g.: What physical phenomena is being explored?). • Description of context has appropriately sized scope (not too broad or too narrow) to introduce a reader to what you are doing. • Text is appropriately referenced. All necessary claims are supported with review articles, books, or a first study on a particular subject/statement. • One clear, persuasive knowledge gap, problem statement, or objective is established. Preferably in one sentence. • A statement precisely specifying/summarizing what was done in the work (preferably in one sentence). Typically, this will be responsive to the prior stated knowledge gap. By construction, in conjunction with the prior stated knowledge gap, this should make clear the current work's importance. • A brief summary of what was done in the experiment/study is provided in order to establish context (significantly shorter than would be used to reproduce your results) [this can extend between the end of the introduction and the beginning of the results section]

Fig: 1