Professor Uhl
Writing for Engineering
Edison Tian
May 1, 2021

My rhetorical analysis of the lab “Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life
electric vehicle batteries in residential and utility-level applications” led by Dipti Kamath,
Siddharth Shukla, Renata Arsenault, Hyundai Chip Kim, and Annick Anctil elaborates on how
the usage and effectiveness of each part of a lab such as the introduction or the methods. Overall,
my tone was fairly neutral and informative.

The analysis has a slightly critical tone when there are aspects that disagreed with the
technical communications book during a side by side comparison. For example, when the lab
report’s title is too wordy, I explain how that can hinder the focus for the reader assuming they
come from a general audience. This slight critical tone and analysis helps the study write better
lab reports. Whether this is in the form of revising the current lab or writing better lab reports in
the future, my analysis can serve as a guide. This way, those future lab reports are more suitable
for a general audience to read. This means the information presented can reach the audience
much more effectively resulting in more interest for this topic.

Identifying and comparing the different parts of this lab report will assist me in doing any
future assignment that involves a rhetorical analysis. This assignment would also help me
identify well written lab reports in this class. Overall, the concise writing and lab report
guidelines is applicable to many assignments in the course.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.