Jones 1

Andrew R. Jones
Professor Daniel Powell
ENC 3241
9 February 2015
Critical Analysis of Readability between Technical Reports
Two pieces of technical writing, the one a report on publishing standards in academia and
the other a dissertation on three-dimensional modeling in virtual worlds, are considered. All
writing has a purpose; the genre of technical writing is no exception. Accordingly, each piece is
judged by how well it uses characteristics of technical writing to pursue its purpose and whether
or not it achieves its purpose.
In terms of design principles, the two reports are equally strong. Despite the differences
in topic and purpose, both reports are largely similar in organization. As in most essays, both
reports begin with a section titled Introduction and end with one titled Conclusion. More
strikingly, both are heavily segmented to a similar extent, to the benefit of each. The division of
content into clear sections and subsections enhances the cohesiveness of similar ideas and creates
smooth transitions from one idea to another. Daniel Lynch takes the organization to one level
deeper in the eighth section of his report with the introduction of sub-subsections. At first glance,
the extra level of organization seems excessive, with as many as three sections per page. A closer
look at the content in that section reveals the appropriateness of his decision. Overall, the two
works have a similar design from start to end.

Jones 2

In terms of cadence, the two works are similar depending on the level of examination. At
the level of the sentence, the two works are similar to each other in length and in verb-to-noun
ratio. As a consequence, the sentences in both possess a strong cadence, which, in turn, facilitates
the communication of the authors ideas to the reader. However, at the level of the paragraph, the
works differ, and the difference impacts the cadence of each, for better or for worse. In contrast
to Jeff Terrace, Daniel Lynch regularly constrains his paragraphs to only two sentences. The
large number of short paragraphs introduces unnecessary breaks in the flow as the reader
transitions from paragraph to paragraph, and the excessive transitioning weakens the strong
cadence established by the individual sentences. On the other hand, the paragraph length
employed by Jeff Terrace comes across as appropriate and does not negatively impact the strong
cadence of his sentences.
Both Daniel Lynch and Jeff Terrace are strong technical writers. Daniel Lynchs greatest
strength lies, perhaps, in his clear presentation of problem and solution. He is persuasive in
convincing his reader of the existence of a problem, and he offers a compelling solution to the
problem. His weakest point, on the hand, is his choice of images, always relevant but rarely of
any value. For example, nearly identical images are found in sections 1.1 and 2.4. His work
would benefit from images that either clarify existing content or contribute additional content. In
contrast to Daniel Lynch, Jeff Terrace expertly uses images, making his work more accessible to
someone unfamiliar with his topic. However, the intended audience of his dissertation consists of
well-educated faculty members of a prestigious university. Therefore, I might suggest Terrace
assume his reader possesses a greater familiarity with his topic, allowing Terrace to eliminate the
lengthy background information he provides. In doing so, he frees himself to focus on his own
unique contribution to the topic and improves the conciseness of his dissertation.

Jones 3

At the risk of being indecisive, I believe neither work is stronger than the other. Both are
technical in writing; however, the purpose of each is different. Daniel Lynch addresses his
colleagues in order to highlight a problem in his field of study and initiate discussion of the issue
with a proposed solution. Jeff Terrace submits his research to be reviewed by a committee of his
academic superiors in order to contribute to his own field of study and advance in his academic
career. Although the technical strengths of the two authors lie in different areas, each work,
considered in whole, satisfies its intended purpose. By that standard of evaluation, the two works
are equally strong pieces of writing.