Examples of good and poor Conclusion sections
An example of a good conclusion section from a design/feasability report
"Easy
Tap' is suitable for all outside taps throughout Australia, as is
suits tap handles with a diameter of less than 18 mm at their widest
point. Provided users do not overtighten
the tap valve; this solution successfully eliminates the difficulty
of operating an outdoor garden tap. The
solution is economically viable, due to its simple construction
and the use of inexpensive materials and construction methods.
An approximate cost of $2.64 has been estimated for materials, thus
a retail price in the $5 to $10 price range is envisaged. This price
covers all costs and includes a reasonable profit margin; the results
of a representative consumer survey suggest suitable demand for
the product in this price range.
"Easy Tap" satisfies all of the
restrictions as described in section 1.3, and satisfies the outcomes
described in section 1.6. It is a light, maneuverable, durable and
inexpensive solution. The "Easy Tap" successfully eliminates
the difficulty of operating an outdoor tap, regardless of the tap's
condition, the user's strength, the original handle size and the
environmental conditions. "Easytap" is a possible and
commercially viable solution for this design problem. |
Major
conclusion
reference to aims and objectivesadvantages of the findings
support provided for previous point
authors� evaluation of the design |
An example of a POOR conclusion section from a design/feasability report
When camping,
there is a need to move around at night and there is also a need
for a product that keeps the camper warm and dry while moving around.
From assessment of the design problem and
close scrutiny of the possible solutions, it is clear that the most
feasable solution is to design a sleeping bag with legs and other
features known as �The Sleepsuit�. It
has many features that make it desirable to campers. It is also
expected to make high profits. |
reference
to the design problem
No support given for choice
No detailing of information that has allowed
the author/s to reach these general conclusions |
An example of a good conclusion section from a feasability/recommendation
report
Advanced
ceramic materials such as zirconia have great potential as substitutes
for traditional materials in many engineering applications. To
date, the achievement of a consistently reliable product quality
has entailed high manufacturing costs which has impacted on the
commercial viability of production. Microwave
sintering, a new method, seems to have overcome these problems.
It produces product quality that is consistent
and reliable. In addition, there is some evidence that the mechanical
properties of microwave-sintered ceramics are superior to those
of conventionally-sintered ceramics. The use of rapid volumetric
heating in microwave sintering as opposed to the conventional method
of slow controlled high temperature heating and cooling results
in lower production costs because of the short heating and the reduced
processing cycle. The reduced processing cycle also allows a higher
production rate. In addition, the equipment for microwave sintering
is also less costly than that required for conventional processes
and requires less maintenance. In terms of energy usage, microwave
sintering is also significantly less costly: calculations of energy
savings range from 25 to 95 %. These
results lead to the conclusion that microwave sintering is a superior
method of processing advanced ceramic material than the conventional
method of production. |
Background
to problem
Research problem
Major conclusion
Support for this conclusion
Another conclusion and statement of the
significance of the findings reported |
� Copyright
2000
Comments and questions should
be directed to [email protected]
|