LABORATORY REPORT – Hire Academic Expert

7024 LABORATORY REPORT
by Fathima Shalmija Kunnath
Submission date: 31-Jul-2022 07:23PM (UTC+0100)
Submission ID: 184546030
File name: LAB_REPORT-FNL-7024.pdf (645.19K)
Word count: 2687
Character count: 15725

18
2 1
3
Citation Needed
4
5
Citation Needed
6
7
8
Citation Needed
9
10 11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22

23
24
25

26
27
28

19
29
30

31
33 32
Citation Needed
Citation Needed
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

14
42 41
43

17
44
45

46
6 8
9
10
11
12
16
47
4 3 5 2 7
15
20

1
12
13

19%
SIMILARITY INDEX
19%
INTERNET SOURCES
12%
PUBLICATIONS
15%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 2%
2 2%
3 2%
4 2%
5 1%
6 1%
7 1%
8 1%
9 1%
7024 LABORATORY REPORT
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to Coventry University
Student Paper
Submitted to Chester College of Higher
Education
Student Paper
Submitted to Hellenic Open University
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Central Lancashire
Student Paper
Submitted to Staffordshire University
Student Paper
en.adioscorona.org
Internet Source
jurnal-umbuton.ac.id
Internet Source
jcmr.um.ac.ir
Internet Source
Submitted to The Scientific & Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
13 1%
14 <1%
15 <1%
16 <1%
17 <1%
18 <1%
19 <1%
20 <1%
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Lincoln
Student Paper
Submitted to Queensland University of
Technology
Student Paper
nsuworks.nova.edu
Internet Source
library.universitaspertamina.ac.id
Internet Source
core.ac.uk
Internet Source
aedit.com
Internet Source
www.beyondpesticides.org
Internet Source
www.koreascience.or.kr
Internet Source
bura.brunel.ac.uk
Internet Source
www.tankonyvtar.hu
Internet Source
www.southernafricafoodlab.org
Internet Source
Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography Off
Exclude matches Off
FINAL GRADE
20/100
7024 LABORATORY REPORT
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
The introduction should contain more detail regarding
antigenic shift and drift. There was some detail
outlining vaccines. However, the explanation was very
poor and not always specific to influenza.
Furthermore, no aims of the report were included.
The methods section is very poor. Only contained the
theory behind the technique performed. This section
must outline what you did in the lab not the theory
behind the techniques.
The results section is very poor with little to no
explanation of the results obtained. The quality of the
gel image is poor and not labelled.
The discussion contains no references and hence no
discussion of the data within the wider literature. Most
of the discussion contains information that should be
included in the results section, particularly highlighted
by the presentation of the sequencing results.
Very poor scientific language in most parts. APA
referring is not followed and references need to be
presented in alphabetical order.
Marked by SA
Mark agreed by AI
QM
QM
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
Comment 1
causes
Comment 2
poor explanation
Comment 3
poor English
Citation Needed
Cite Source:
Please use the link below to find links to information regarding specific citation styles:
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html
Comment 4
Wording is a bit awkward
Comment 5
What causes the several types of combinations? Sentence is a bit ambiguous
Citation Needed
Cite Source:
Please use the link below to find links to information regarding specific citation styles:
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html
Comment 6
What does this table show?
A descriptive figure legend would help reduce confusion
Comment 7
Follow APA referencing style
Comment 8
QM
poor scientific language say influenza
Citation Needed
Cite Source:
Please use the link below to find links to information regarding specific citation styles:
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html
Comment 9
poor explanation
Comment 10
keep it specific to influenza
Comment 11
poor explanation
PAGE 4
Comment 12
keep it specific to influenza
Comment 13
aims of the report are not included
Comment 14
Your Method section should include:
– Specific details, i.e. primer sequences. – Deviations from the original method noted without
repeating unnecessary detail.
– Where scientific software has been used for data analysis appropriate details are to be
added.
Comment 15
not needed
Comment 16
Description of other RNA extraction protocols is not required just mention the kit/method
you used and that you followed the manufacturer’s instructions

Comment 17
too much detail that is not needed in the methods section
Comment 18
confusing sentence
PAGE 5
Comment 19
state what primers were used. Be specific
Comment 20
Again, not needed, just state the kit used to converted RNA to cDNA, primers used
Comment 21
same thing
Comment 22
Again, too much detail. State your PCR experiment, not the theory e.g. the influenza forward
and reverse primers used, what segments they target, the regents used, and cycling
conditions of the PCR reaction
PAGE 6
Comment 23
Again, state the kit used not the theory gel extraction. Be specific to the process that you
conducted in the lab sessions.
PAGE 7
Comment 24
Incorrect. DNA and RNA measurement are independent of each other
Comment 25
Too much detail.
Only a small description of the methods is needed before explaining the results e.g., a
nanodrop was used to measure RNA concentration.

QM
QM
PAGE 8
Comment 26
Poor explanation of results
Comment 27
agarose gel electrophoresis
Comment 28
Where is this result?
PAGE 9
Comment 29
You need to label your image such as the size of the bands on the DNA marker and what is
in each lane of the gel e.g. the negative control and your sample.
Comment 30
This is a general picture not a picture of your results, which is required for this section.
Therefore, there is no explanation of your results only the methodology/theory of sanger
sequencing
PAGE 10
Comment 31
Again, not relevant for this section. You need to present your sequence results and explain
the results.
Comment 32
poor scientific explanation
Comment 33
influenza does not have spike proteins, these are surface proteins
Citation Needed
Cite Source:
Please use the link below to find links to information regarding specific citation styles:
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html
Citation Needed
Cite Source:
Please use the link below to find links to information regarding specific citation styles:
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_citation_styles.html
Comment 34
Explanation of results belongs in the results section, not discussion.
Comment 35
cDNA
Comment 36
methods, not discussion. The primers belong in the methods section.
Comment 37
Same thing
Comment 38
vague, and no discussion of results
Comment 39
This is not a discussion of your results
Comment 40
the appropriate scientific language is not used
PAGE 11
Comment 41
Again, there is no discussion of your results
Comment 42
poor explanantion
Comment 43
This belongs in the results not the discussion
PAGE 12
Comment 44
Influenza is an RNA virus
Comment 45
poor explanation
PAGE 13
Comment 46
vague
PAGE 14
Comment 47
Follow APA referencing style and references must be in alphabetical order
PAGE 15
PAGE 16

RUBRIC: 7024BMS_LAB_REPORT_2122JANMAY
INTRODUCTION
DISTINCTION > 75
MERIT 62-68
PASS/HIGH 52-58
PASS/LOW 42-48
FAIL 0-35
METHODS
DISTINCTION > 75
MERIT 62-68
PASS/HIGH 52-58
PASS/LOW 42-48
FAIL 0-35
Fail 0-35
20%
An appropriate and concise literature review which introduces the main concepts.
Rationale for methodology discussed; clear links between method and theory.
Research question(s) clearly outlined and related to current state of knowledge
Appropriate and critical literature review of the topic but contains minor
omissions or misconceptions.<br />Clear research question/hypothesis must be
stated.<br />Rationale for methodology discussed, but ambiguous/unclear links to
the background theory.<br />
Adequate literature review, possibly lacking in discrimination with relevant facts.
<br />Research question/hypothesis outlined.<br />Aspects of methodology
associated with laboratory protocol covered, but misinterpreted/poorly explained.
Incomplete literature review, sections are included not relevant to the research
question;<br />Research question/hypothesis unclear or unspecified.
Very incomplete or absent literature review<br />Sections are included not
relevant to the research question; very poor understanding shown.<br />Research
question/hypothesis unclear or unspecified or incorrect.
Fail 0-35
35%
Includes specific details, i.e. primer sequences.<br />Deviations from the original
method noted without repeating unnecessary detail.<br />Where scientific
software has been used for data analysis appropriate details are to be added.<br
/>Correct SI units to be used throughout.
Methodology well-presented but a small proportion of the key details (e.g. SI units)
are missing / overly complicated and requires editing.<br />Where scientific
software has been used for data analysis appropriate details are to be added.
A description of the methods are covered but lacking detail in large proportions
and/or this section requires further work and editing to be concise;<br />Many
details such as SI units missing or misrepresented.<br />Little indication of
statistical tests used.<br />Incomplete extra information describing ligands,
software etc.
Lacking clarity with key sections missing.<br />Alternatively, simply copy and paste
of unedited methods lacking insight into key aspects.<br />Failure to use units and
specific details, statistical methods lacking clarity.
Lacking clarity with key sections missing;<br />Alternatively, has simply copied and
pasted unedited methods lacking insight into key aspects. May contain major
errors and omissions.<br />Failure to use units and specific details, relevant
statistical methods or calculations lacking clarity or incorrect or absent.

RESULTS
DISTINCTION > 75
MERIT 62-68
PASS/HIGH 52-58
PASS/LOW 42-48
FAIL 0-35
DISCUSSION
DISTINCTION > 75
Fail 0-35
35%
Summaries of experimental rational to be used to introduce and narrate results
sub sections.<br />Correctly labelled figure and tables are presented with
informative figure legends.<br />Clear and concise narrative to be added to the
main text to support figure and tables etc.<br />Clear referencing of figures and
tables to be included in the main body of the text.<br />Only analysed/ processed
data is presented i.e. raw data/unprocess ed is not to be included.<br />Correct
choice and usage of statistical techniques used.
Clear narrative introducing data in the form of figures and tables etc.<br />Clear
description of results which highlight the major findings.<br />Figures and tables
present but not of publication quality in places.<br />Legends present but not
complete or concise in places.<br />Failure, in places, to refer to figures and tables
in the main body of the text.<br />Correct choice and good command of any
statistical techniques used. <br />
Results section ordered logically but little descriptive text between experimental
findings.<br />Figures, tables and legends adequate but require some
interpretation from additional sources or prior knowledge in places.<br />Evidence
of repetition of data, inappropriate choice of presentation of data or missing data
in a small section.<br />Incomplete referencing of figures/tables etc in the main
body of the text.<br />The presented is generally well chosen and use of some
statistical techniques employed.
Figures, tables and legends present but with no narrative present linking them to
the results.<br />Data is poorly presented making interpretations difficult to
reader. Proportions of data missing and/or miss represented.<br />Legends
brief/missing and uninformative.<br />Raw data presented.<br />Little or
inappropriate use of statistics.
Figures, tables and legends may be present but with little or no narrative present
linking them to the results.<br />Data is very poorly presented making
interpretations difficult or impossible for the reader.<br />Large proportions of
data may be missing and/or misrepresented or illogically presented,<br />Legends
brief/missing and uninformative or inaccurate.<br />Raw data may be presented
with little or no interpretation or explanation.<br />Little or inappropriate use of
statistics.
Fail 0-35
35%
A critical evaluation of how the initial research question(s) and resulting data fit in
to the wider scientific literature.<br />Combine literature to construct critical
analysis.<br />Critical evaluation of the literature which supports or opposes the
data and/or initial research question.<br />Full consideration of the impact i.e.
practical implications of experimental findings which includes directions for future
work.<br />Full consideration of shortcomings and limitations of present .<br
/>Relevant conclusions with original analysis in relation to literature.

MERIT 62-68
PASS/HIGH 52-58
PASS/LOW 42-48
FAIL 0-35
PRESENTATION
DISTINCTION > 75
MERIT 62-68
PASS/HIGH 52-58
PASS/LOW 42-48
FAIL 0-35
Thorough and interpretive, but not presented in a logical progression.<br
/>Research question/hypoth esis associated to the wider scientific literature.<br
/>Critical evaluation of the literature which supports or opposes the data and/or
initial research question.<br />Some discussion of practical implications of
findings and ideas for further investigation to include shortcomings of the project.
<br />Relevant conclusions with partial critical analysis in relation to literature. <br
/>
Discussion covering the most relevant factors/key findings.<br />Including relevant
conclusions offered for key elements related to existing knowledge and present
research presented within report.<br />Consideration of supporting but possibly
insufficient attention to scientific literature that is inconsistent to the research
question and / or data obtained in the laboratory.<br />Little/no discussion of
practical implications of findings and ideas for further investigation.<br />Limited
critical discussion and without support from the wider scientific.
Discussion incomplete and possibly superficial.<br />Some unsubstantiated or
inappropriate conclusions.<br />Discussion liable to irrelevancies.<br />Little
evidence of ability to weigh conflicting or inconsistent data.
Discussion absent or incomplete and possibly superficial. May contain many very
significant errors.<br />May contain many unsubstantiated or inappropriate
conclusions.<br />Discussion contains multiple to irrelevancies and inaccuracies.
<br />Little or no evidence of ability to weigh conflicting or inconsistent data.
Fail 0-35
5%
Appropriate subdivision of text into sections.<br />Excellent use of scientific.<br
/>Text clear and succinct, with no ambiguity; Consistent use of appropriate
terminology.<br />References, graphs, tables, figures (if used) of publishable
quality.<br />No inaccuracies of any significance.
Appropriate subdivision of text into sections.<br />Good use of scientific English.
<br />Neat and accurate throughout.<br />References, graphs, tables, figures (if
used) legible and accurate.<br />Negligible errors; generally, a high level of clarity.
<br />
Appropriate subdivision of text into sections.<br />Reasonable use of scientific
English.<br />Reasonable standard of neatness and accuracy.<br />References,
graphs, tables, figures (if used) for the most part legible and free from errors.<br
/>Generally a reasonable level of clarity.
Poor level of neatness and accuracy.<br />Poor scientific English.<br />References,
graphs, tables, figures (if used) inaccurate, incomplete or difficult to interpret.<br
/>Some parts of the report unclear.
Very poor level of neatness and accuracy;<br />Very poor scientific English<br
/>References, graphs, tables, figures (if used) inaccurate, incomplete, absent or
difficult to interpret;<br />Several parts of the report very unclear and poorly
written.