Essays + Memo’s – Writing for Engineers

Product Review Essay

Aaron Ramirez

English 11000

Due 2/6/2023

Prof. Rodwell

Product Review of the Viper Ultimate gaming mouse

The product in question is none other than a gaming mouse, specifically, the model known as the “Viper Ultimate”. Mice generally serve the purpose of allowing people to navigate and control their computers. The Viper Ultimate, however, additionally is made for comfort, precision, as well as reliability.

The invention of the optical mouse was one technological advancement that made mice (of course including the Viper Ultimate) conceivable. In the past, mice used to utilize a ball to track movements you make with the mouse before transmitting the movement to your computer. Now, with the innovation of the optical mouse, mice now utilize a sensor to track movement which is generally more accurate and responsive. This enhanced the mouse’s general functionality and made it possible to monitor movements more precisely. This innovation was crucial to the precision that gamers today demand to enhance their performance.

Another innovation that made the Viper Ultimate possible is the wireless dongle. The wireless dongle is a technological innovation that allows the Viper Ultimate to connect to a computer wirelessly. The dongle is plugged into a computer USB port and acts as a receiver for any input the mouse makes. The input is then sent straight to the computer the dongle is connected to eliminating the necessity for physical connectivity.

Another asset to the Viper Ultimate is how comfortable it is to use as a lightweight gaming mouse. Its ergonomic, symmetrical design makes the mouse comfortable to use—even during extended gaming sessions. Not everyone likes a mouse that is symmetrical, preferences in how one would hold the mouse as well as hand size and shape is different for everyone and dictates what is comfortable or not. However, symmetrical shaped mice are the most standard, someone who doesn’t have previous experiences with differently shaped mice or someone who doesn’t plan to play video games would find the Viper Ultimate comfortable regardless. Thanks to the innovation of the wireless dongle, setup with this mouse remains clutter-free and easier to use without the limitations of a cable on or around your desktop.

As a gaming mouse, one important criterion to check off for most people is its accuracy. The Viper Ultimate boasts very precise inputs and little to no input delay. This is in large part thanks to the innovation of the optical mouse which revolutionized the accuracy possible for a mouse to have. In my use of the product, it has performed admirably. Even the smallest of micro adjustments registers thanks to its advanced sensor and being light in weight. In my experience and in the experience of some pro gamers I am aware of like even Tenz (a very successful pro gamer) at one point, agree that you are more than capable of reaching the highest level of aiming with this mouse. The Viper Ultimate is generally a very responsive and snappy mouse perfect for first-person shooters.

The Viper Ultimate is also reliable for casual users as well. This mouse will live a long time with as much as 70million clicks, meaning that you won’t have to get a new one for a very long time. Incidentally the clickers are very satisfying and sensitive to allow for many clicks in succession. On a smaller scale the Viper Ultimate has an enormous battery life of up to 70hrs. In my use of this product I never had noticed until recently because I often made the mistake of leaving the mouse on all night. Not that it died often anyway, forgetting to charge your mouse with the Viper Ultimate doesn’t mean waking up and having to charge your mouse every morning. It does come with a charging dock that you can connect your computers USB and even connect your dongle to avoid using so many USB ports. The charging dock charges extremely fast considering how long the battery last, and I usually only leave it charge for about 10 mins and that usually charges it more than enough to get through the day.

All in all, the Viper Ultimate is an amazing product. It meets every conceivable criterion and has served me well in the year or so that I’ve used it. The Viper Ultimate offers comfort being that it is wireless, lightweight, and symmetrical. The perfect combination of attributes for gamers and casual users alike. The Viper Ultimate is also accurate, it is perfect for First person shooter video games. Finally, the Viper Ultimate is a reliable product, both in battery life and durability making this mouse a very good option for anybody looking for a good mouse.

Product Review Essay Draft

Aaron Ramirez

English 11000

Due 2/6/2023

Product Review Essay

The product in question is none other than a gaming mouse, specifically, the model known as the “Viper Ultimate”. Mice generally serve the purpose of allowing people to navigate and control their computers. The Viper Ultimate however additionally is made for comfort, precision, as well as reliability.

The invention of the optical mouse was one technological advancement that made mice (of course including the Viper Ultimate) conceivable. The optical mouse, which uses an LED and sensor to detect movement on a surface, took the role of the conventional mechanical mouse, which used a ball to track movements. This enhanced the mouse’s general functionality and made it possible to monitor movements more precisely. This innovation was crucial to the precision that gamers today demand to enhance their performance.

So how good is the Viper Ultimate as a mouse? Well for starters it’s a comfortable lightweight mouse. Firstly, its design is sleek and symmetrical and because of its ergonomic design, the mouse is portable and comfortable to use—even during extended gaming sessions. Not everyone likes a mouse that is symmetrical, however, this isn’t the fault of the mice’s design and is more of a subjective thing. Thanks to the innovation of the wireless dongle, your setup with this mouse remains clutter-free and easier to use without the limitations of a cable on or around your desktop.

As a gaming mouse, the Viper Ultimate also boasts very precise inputs and little to no input delay. This is in large part thanks to the innovation of the optical mouse which revolutionized the accuracy possible for a mouse to have. In my use of the product, it has performed admirably. Even the smallest of micro adjustments registers thanks to its advanced sensor and being light in weight. In my experience and in the experience of some pro gamers I am aware of like even Tenz at one point, agree that you are more than capable of reaching the highest level of aiming with this mouse. The Viper Ultimate is generally a very responsive and snappy mouse perfect for first-person shooters.

The Viper Ultimate is also very reliable for casual users as well. This mouse will live a long time with as much as 70million clicks, meaning that you won’t have to get a new one for a very long time. Incidentally the clickers are very satisfying and sensitive to allow for many clicks in succession. On a smaller scale the Viper Ultimate has an enormous battery life of up to 70hrs. In my use of this product I never had noticed until recently because I often made the mistake of leaving the mouse on all night. Not that it died often anyway, if your that kind of forgetful person than with the Viper Ultimate it doesn’t mean waking up and having to charge your mouse every morning. It does come with a charging dock that you can connect your computers USB and even connect your dongle to avoid using so many USB ports. The charging dock charges extremely fast considering how long the battery last, and I usually only leave it charge for about 10 mins.

All in all, the Viper Ultimate is an amazing product. It meets every conceivable criterion and, in my opinion, the Viper Ultimate offers comfort, accuracy, and reliability as a high end mouse. The Viper Ultimate does not disappoint.

Product Review Essay memo

To: Prof. Rodwell

From: Aaron Ramirez

Subject: Writing for Engineers Product review essay

Date: 2/21/2023

Memoir on Product Review Essay

The Product Review Essay in my opinion was not too challenging. My product was a mouse, the Viper Ultimate, (which I use every day) so I had a very strong opinion of it. The purpose of this Product Review Essay was to evaluate a product’s value based on the products purpose. In this essay we needed to answer this question objectively so that our readers can learn whether they want to invest in this product. For the Viper Ultimate, I used Reliability, Comfort, and Accuracy. Good choices for my criterion overall and explaining them was simple enough. My professor was confused initially on my accuracy section as I did not make it clear that that was my criterion. In trying to make my writing sound better I made the mistake of losing too much clarity in my writing which is something I need to watch out for in the future. Additionally, I made the mistake of sounding commercial, like I was paid to write something good about the product (my professors’ words). Keeping in mind my purpose should probably help with my voice in my writing.

In other words, my writing struggles during this piece was maintaining a tone that sounds honest. This is important because I want my audience to trust my review. Secondly, I didn’t explicitly state all my criteria. My audience will be looking for reasons to buy this product and if I give them the evidence without the claim and they won’t absorb any of the information I gave them in that section.

Overall, I need to consider the rhetorical situation of the audience and review my final piece so that I can convey the right messages to my readers.

Lab Report Analysis Essay

The efficacy of a lab can be divided up into many factors. However, most lab reports share the goal of trying to achieve/prove a theory and organize their findings. The Lab “How safe is the food we eat? A case study using edamame and an electrochemical lab o-on-kitchen approach to combinatorial testing for pesticides and GMOs” (lab 1) tries to create a method of evaluating whether or not food is safe for consumption. The lab “can living labs offer a pathway to support local agri-food sustainability transitions” (lab 2) tries to determine whether living labs can offer support to local agri-food sustainability transitions in the future. Our final lab “Date canning: a new approach for the long-time preservation of date” evaluates the effectiveness of canning as a method of preserving food. This essay aims to explain my analysis of these 3 labs and ultimately why I think that Lab 2 is the most complete and perfect Lab of the 3.

Lab 1’s abstract states that people want to know how safe their food is before eating it and how the gold-standard method for checking your food is not amendable to rapid consumer use. This is followed by a complete summary of the lab as a whole and Lab 1’s abstract is complete. It is worth mentioning that Lab 1’s abstract was a more confusing read for the more general audience due to the use of science to summarize its methods in its summary. Lab 2 does not discuss the motivation behind the Lab in its abstract and instead, opts to define what living labs are which is the topic of the lab, and then summarize the lab. Lab 3’s abstract provides a very short summary of the purpose and what will happen in the Lab, much shorter than in both Lab 1 and 2. All 3 labs are similar in what they chose to include which made it easy to understand for the reader, however, Lab1 used language that the general public cannot understand like Cry1Ab and Chlp respectively. In other words, Lab 3 has the best abstract in this instance while Lab 1 and 2 have their own separate weaknesses.

The introduction of Lab 1 provides an extensive amount of context concerning the use/production of insecticides including developments in the field. Lab 2 on the other hand uses the introduction to introduce the motivation behind the lab as well as summarize what’s going to happen in the lab. This is something that both Lab 1 and 3 accomplished in their abstract which was less overwhelming for the reader since this information was given to us in smaller portions and not all jammed into one section. Lab 2 continues to further define living labs as well as how the question of their use will be investigated throughout the lab. Lab 3 uses its introduction to give context about date fruit to then use to test different methods of preservation for the date fruit that will be evaluated throughout the lab. While Lab 1 focused solely on the context of the topic being experimented on, Lab 2 and 3 only quickly vaguely talks about the context behind the lab. Instead, Lab 2 used most of its introduction section to explain its purpose to investigate the use of Living labs and their different forms, only vaguely trying to include context by explaining that there are health environmental crises and high unemployment rates in rural areas etcetera. However, this feeds more into the motivation behind the lab than it provides the reader with context behind the lab. Whereas Lab 3 briefly discusses the context behind date fruit only to explain and introduce the methods of preservation that is to be evaluated in the article. Lab 3 accomplishes the best of both worlds in Labs 1 and 2 when it briefly goes over the context instead of only discussing the context or not discussing it at all. The reader shouldn’t move past the introduction of a Lab report and be confused as to what is happening or what is going to be talked about. Lab 3 despite its underwhelming amount of detail so far accomplishes this and so does lab 2. In lab 1 I do not know what is going to happen next in the lab however I understand why it’s happening because nothing, but the context is discussed. For Lab 2 I understand what is going to happen next in the lab and the purpose is stated, however, one problem with this introduction is that there is no context given to the reader. In Lab 3 there is context, and I can understand what is next from the abstract which is why Lab 3 works well despite being much smaller than Lab 1 and 2.

For the methods section of the Labs, it was expected that each Lab would employ very different methods and that’s exactly what happened. Lab 1 used an electrochemical lab-on-kitchen approach to construct a device that would work to test foods for safety of consumption. Different in nature, Lab 1 used a peculiar structure to explain their methods of experimentation. Firstly, constructing this device required multiple tests to see if the device worked. So, each experiment was ordered chronologically and structured in separate sections. Lab 2 on the other hand ran a much simpler method, the Bibliometric analysis method. This method is a statistical evaluation of published journal papers or other credible pieces that pertains to the subject. This was followed by a Semantic Cartographic analysis to identify where the use of the word Living labs began. Many illustrations as well as an analysis of these illustrations were given to us to understand the method and results in this Lab and section. Lab 3 evaluates multiple methods that can help preserve the date fruit like fumigation, modified atmosphere packaging, heat treatment etcetera. Lab 3 structures these many methods by first splitting up all methods of preservation into 2 sub-groups non-thermal methods and thermal methods of preservation. Then listed each method within those groups before going into detail about each method’s process in the same order. The structure of all 3 of these methods and results sections were easy to follow and were conclusive in their findings by clearly stating the results.

The discussion section of a lab report is supposed to explain to the reader why the results were important and what happened in the experiment. Lab report 1 doesn’t explicitly contain a discussion section, however, it does try to explain the importance of each experiment coherently as it moves from one test to another in the method section. Lab 1 also does not state why the results were important in this section. Lab 2 has a discussion section that does state why the results were important and helped find a clear distinction between citizen-centered Living labs and user-centered Living labs as well as what happened in the experiment that brought us to those results. Just like Lab 1, Lab 3 does not explicitly contain a discussion section, however, it doesn’t try to explain to the reader anything about the results and only sometimes acknowledges the results of some of the many methods presented. In this section, Lab 2 is the only Lab that does a proper job of bringing its results to the reader. Even while Lab 1 tries at explaining the results of each section to the reader, it falls short because it’s never clear enough for the general audience to understand. Jargon like the emstat pico module isn’t something people can simply know through this writing. The absence of a discussion section constructed for the purpose of making these things clear to a broader audience hurts this piece of writing. Whereas Lab 3 does not even try to summarize the results of the experiment to the reader. It simply cuts straight to the conclusion for Lab 3.

The conclusion of a Lab report simply needs to confirm or deny the Labs thesis in a clear and concise summary of the Lab. Additionally, appendices are useful tools for making Lab reports clearer when describing something that’s easier to visualize than to write. Lab 1’s conclusion simply states that they’ve succeeded at doing everything they set out to do and closes by stating the value of the experiment. Lab 1 also included multiple schematics illustrating many scientific ideas and results discussed throughout the Lab. Lab 2’s conclusion does the same except includes a claim considering their findings. Lab 2 use of diagrams helped to visualize where their data was skewered to better understand their results, this Lab spent a lot of time analyzing these diagrams. Lab 3 also summarized their results however had to admit that not all their findings were conclusive enough and that some more research was necessary. Lab 3 included appendices such as tables and graphics to organize the methods throughout the Lab report and to visualize the methods presented.

To be an effective Lab you must not only include a proper Abstract, Introduction, Methods and results, Discussion, and a conclusion and appendices section. The results of my analysis of these 3 labs suggest that Lab 2 was the most complete and perfect Lab of the 3. Lab 1 and 3 missed simple and dramatic things alike that set them apart from Lab 2 that at least tried at everything important to have in a Lab report and succeeded in most areas. Labs 1 and 3 on the other hand did not even include a discussion section atop the different structural choices the writers made in contrast to the authors of Lab 2. Lab 2 was the most exemplary and consequently the most effective Lab report at relaying the details of the author’s findings to me.

Lab Report Analysis draft

Aaron Ramirez

Prof. Rodwell

Due 2/27/2023

Writing for Engineers

Final Draft of Analysis Essay

The efficacy of a lab can be chalked up too many different factors. Most importantly in my opinion they’re results in comparison to their purpose as well as how helpful it was to the reader. In the lab “How safe is the food we eat? A case study using edamame and an electrochemical lab-on-kitchen approach to combinatorial testing for pesticides and GMOs”(lab 1) which tries to create a method of evaluating whether or not food is safe for consumption. In the lab “can living labs offer a pathway to support local agri-food sustainability transitions?” (lab 2) which tries to determine whether living labs can offer support to local agri-food sustainability transitions in the future. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the effectiveness of both these labs in terms of usefulness, structure, as well as whether or not the lab was successful to them.

To begin, lab 1’s abstract begins by talking about the motivation for the lab by suggesting that people want to know how safe their food is before they eat it in this day and age and how the gold-standard method for checking your food is not amendable to rapid consumer use. The author than goes on to summarize how the lab will continues including a bit of the methods used in this lab. In lab 2 however the motivation isn’t as defined and in comparison, goes straight into summarizing the lab. In this way lab 2 leaves me more confused as to the purpose of this lab. On the other hand I did understand what was going to happen in the lab in lab 2 more than in lab 1 because it didn’t include as much of a sophisticated method and instead a simple overview. Lab 2 was overall structured to be easier to understand for those less educated on the subject and I don’t believe lab 1 needed to include as much of the why’s and how’s of the method in their abstract.

There isn’t as much to say about the introductions of both labs however as they are both similar in structure. Both do a decent job at trying to get us to understand the topic a little bit more and give us context. Some details could have been omitted however and perhaps left to be explained in the discussion section for lab 1. In comparison to lab 2, the introduction of lab 1 drags on incredibly long and while some of that can be acquitted to the nature of the topic (it being more difficult). Firstly, the introduction of begins by explaining the motivation behind the lab and even goes as far as to give statistics. Should that part be cut out the introduction would be half as long and it wasn’t necessary to the piece to include. Especially in as much detail as it was given to us. After giving the reader the motivation behind the lab and some context behind the topic, the author also chose to include details of the method, like a detailed hypothesis which lab 2 doesn’t have. This is a good addition to this introduction because it introduces how the method will proceed without going into too much detail.

Both labs employed very different methods to bring about their results. Lab 1 used a electrochemical lab-on-kitchen approach to construct a device that would word to test foods for safety of consumption. This method is a lot more thorough and reliant on science than the method used in lab 2. Different in nature, lab 1 used a peculiar structure to explain their methods of experimentation. Firstly, constructing this device required multiple tests to see if the device worked. So, each experimentation was ordered chronologically and structured in separate sections. It was clear to understand since it was broken up so much and there isn’t many alternatives to organizing a lab that ran this many test. Lab 2 on the other ran a much simpler method, the Bibliometric analysis method. This method is a statistical evaluation of published journal papers or other credible pieces that pertains to the subject.

Lab Report Analysis Memo

To: Prof. Rodwell

From: Aaron Ramirez

Subject: Writing for Engineers Lab Report Analysis Essay memo

Due 3/13/2023

L.R.A. Memo

The Lab report analysis essay was a much more difficult essay to complete than the product review essay. The purpose of the Lab report analysis essay was to choose, analyze, and compare 3 labs of my own choice. My L.R.A. may have felt lacking when it came to comparing the 3 labs because all, but 1 lab was obviously a bad lab report. This caused my analysis to be very linear and maybe not the type of analysis my professor was hoping to see.

Analyzing the lab reports was difficult because without having enough experience with proper lab reports it felt difficult to identify problems. Especially since the focus of my analysis was mostly on the structure of the lab reports and objectives. For the same reason I also had problems getting a full five pages and instead had about 4 and a half not counting the cover page and references. Overall staying true to my rhetorical situation and deliberately choosing criticism to fit my focus of analysis was difficult and time consuming. Researching was a skill I clearly lacked when writing this essay as I spent a lot of time to find subpar lab reports. Subpar in the sense that they arguably met the requirements of this assignment but only just that. Despite my reservations about the quality of my L.R.A, I at the very least met the criteria for this assignment, I properly explained the structure of each lab report and compared/contrasted them. One thing I can perhaps work on for the future is how well I can analyze text.

To fix these problems, I can simply continue to read different lab reports to gain the experience necessary to tell a good and bad lab report apart. I can also write out the rhetorical situation of my piece so that my writing is purposeful and considerate to the genre and audience. Finally, I can plan my time more deliberately so that I do not have to settle for research that isn’t strong like the lab reports I used.

Technical Description

Aaron Ramirez

Writing For Engineers

Prof. Rodwell

Extension permitted (4/7/2023)

Table of Contents

2- Innovations that lead to the DeLonghi Nespresso U Solo En110.B Expresso machine.
3- Parts and Sub-Parts List in chronological order
4,5,6- Parts and Subparts of the DeLonghi Nespresso U Solo En110.B
7-Conclusion
8-References and appendices

The Delonghi Nespresso U Solo En110.B is one of the many modern-day coffee machine models available for sale today. This model can make not just regular coffee, but also lattes and cappuccinos with an external milk frother.

Coffee was first introduced to America during the mid-1600s when it was brought to New Amsterdam by the British. At the time an old Turkish method of brewing coffee was the only way to make coffee. This was to simply take the coffee beans and leave them in boiling water for a few minutes. This was until Melitta Z Bentz, a German entrepreneur created the first drip coffee maker using a paper filter method. This wasn’t the only coffee innovation between Turkish coffee and our Delonghi Nespresso En110.B coffee maker, however, the first expresso coffee maker was made in 1884 but wasn’t popularized until the 1900s due to its lack of availability. The difference between expresso and drip coffee is that expresso machines use high pressure to force the water through the coffee while drip coffee relies on gravity to pull water through the filters. Both brewing methods drastically change the way the coffee comes out in taste, texture, etc. The Delonghi Nespresso U Solo En110.B is a modern-day expresso machine. Nespresso machines in particular came to the market in 1986 and within the last decade released the U Solo En110.B model. The Delonghi Nespresso En110.B is 7x7x7cm in dimension and 3.94 kilograms in weight. As of 2023 priced at 259.99$ on appliancepricer.com.

Parts and Subparts List of DeLonghi Nespresso U Solo En110.B

OEM Spout Distributer (or nuzzle)

-Duct

-Cup Plate

Tank

-Delonghi water tank connector

-Tank cover

-Filter

-Thermoblock

Pump

-Flowmeter

Infuser (Brew Unit)

-Portafilter

-Drip Tray

Capsules container

OEM Spout Distributer or nozzle

The distributer is a simple yet important part of making the perfect expresso. The function of the distributer is to even out the coffee grinds in the expresso with the water and direct the flow of the coffee into your cup.

–Duct

Connected directly underneath the OEM Spout distributer using seesaw pins that will lower coffee into the user’s cup and expose excess coffee through its back when the user stops pouring coffee. It is used to capture dust and prevent it from settling back into the brew unit.

–Cup Plate

Located under the Duct and OEM Spout Distibuter lies the Cup Plate. A semi-circle designed to catch coffee that may have missed your cup and flow directly into the drip tray.

Water Tank

A plastic cylindrical tank that holds water up to 2 liters for approximately 10 expressos.

-Delonghi Water Tank Connector

A black rubber tube connects to the water tank and allows for the water to be siphoned out of the water tank and into other parts of the machine.

-Tank Cover

A circle-shaped lid prevents dust from flowing into the water reservoir.

–Filter

Protects the machine from excessive formation of limescale deposits as well as eliminates impurities.

-Thermoblock

A metal block with water pipes and embedded heating components. The water gathers up heat from the block as it flows down the pipe and exits at the desired temperature.

Pump

The electrically powered pump works to drive pre-heated water through the brew chamber and into a tightly packed bed of coffee at 15 bars of pressure, which is more than enough for a good expresso, where the coffee and water can be mixed.

–Flowmeter

Is a sensor attached to the pump that measures how much water is pumped into the coffee machine.

Infuser

The Infuser, also known as the Brew unit, is where the spent coffee puck is dispensed. The infuser tamps the coffee grinds and holds them while the pump forces water through them.

– Portafilter

The portafilter is a circular basket connected to the infuser. This is the part that holds the compressed coffee grinds for the infuser to fuse the coffee grinds with the water that gets pumped through.

–Drip Tray

The drip tray is a steel, rectangular tray that can be pulled out from underneath the portafilter. In this model, the drip tray is a part of the casing. The drip tray’s primary function is to catch runoff from the brewing unit during its brewing process.

Capsule Container

A box with holes fraying one side that can be pulled out to insert coffee capsules. These capsules are then spun so that water can be evenly infused with them. This provides an alternative to using powdered coffee depending on whichever is more preferred or available to the user.

The DeLonghi Nespresso U Solo EN110.B expresso machine model is an expresso unit more than capable of making perfect expresso as the user likes it.

References and Appendices

1)https://spares.bigwarehouse.com.au/index.php?cPath=81638_99292_102301&sort=5a&page=1

2) and or google images for a few of the pictures used.

Technical Description Draft

not saved
Instead I will give the T.D outline

Aaron Ramirez

Writing For Engineers

Prof. Rodwell

Due 3/15/2023

Technical Description Outline for Coffee Machine model DeLonghi Nespresso EN110.B

Introduce the product: What is this model? What can this product do (generally and specifically)?

It makes coffee, can froth milk, and add cream on top cohesively.

Name and explain parts one by one:

Cover
Water Tank
Adjustable arm
Body
Coffee outlet
Used capsule container
Drip tray
Drip grid
Adjustable cup support
External Case

Name and explain subparts: blah blah

Include appendices for each section and include the efficacy of each part.

Technical Description Memo

To: Prof. Rodwell

From: Aaron Ramirez

Subject: Writing for Engineers Technical Description Memo

Date: 5/8/2023

Memo For Technical Description of Coffee Machine

In this Technical description, my professor challenged me and her students to be detailed and complete in our work. This meant being thorough when explaining our parts and sub-parts by including dimensions and weight and absolutely every part necessary for the construction of our chosen product. The purpose of this essay after all was to create a proper Technical Description, meaning a clear description of all the parts in an item and their function.

To meet the criteria of the assignment, one writing decision I made was to be descriptive in my explanation of my parts. The research aspect of writing this paper was gruesome in my opinion. For most of my parts, I found myself giving up on details like dimensions and weight that she asked of us due to its difficulty. This made me realize that I had limitations in how descriptive I can be due to the lack of research/information. Other than this the T.D. was very straightforward in writing, since after all the only goal of the paper is to relay information. One thing I did well was organize the information properly. All the parts were organized so that you can see the subparts for each part on the same page. The order of parts also made sense as I organized the parts based on function and how closely they worked together. It can be said that lack of preparation could have been a factor if I had taken more time to search for a product, I could have possibly chosen a product that has more information more easily available. All in all, the research was the most difficult and most important part of the writing process for the T.D.

To better prepare for the future, I need to accumulate more methods of research for more specific things. Another thing I would have to work on is planning out when I will complete work for each stage of my next piece. One writing strategy I learned that I would continue to practice in the future is saying things like dimensions, shape, material in one sentence. This can be a very useful technique when describing objects or even people. Something else I will continue to do is make my writing easier to follow via organization, the way I organized the parts subtly made my essay easier to follow and understand and this sort of consideration for my audience may go a long way.