How to Write the Results Section of a Lab Report

The results section has one job: to present what you found, clearly and objectively, so the reader can see the evidence for themselves. It reports the key data — values, trends, statistical outcomes, and the tables and figures that show them — but it does not explain what they mean, why they happened, or how they compare to the literature. That interpretation belongs in the discussion. Getting this boundary right is the single biggest thing separating a mid and a high mark. If you are writing up a science, health or engineering report and want to see what a strong section looks like in your field, My Perfect Writing’s environmental science assignment help can show you the standard UK markers expect.

This guide covers just the results section. For the full report shape, see how to write a lab report, section by section; for the half that interprets your data, see writing the discussion section.

Integrity first Report the data you actually collected. Presenting results honestly — including the ones that did not go to plan — is part of the science, and part of the marks.

Here is the test for every sentence in your results section: am I showing, or explaining? Showing belongs here; explaining belongs in the discussion.

• Results (show): “Absorbance increased from 0.12 to 0.87 as concentration rose from 0.1 to 0.5 mol/L (Figure 2).”
• Discussion (explain): “This linear increase suggests the reaction follows Beer–Lambert behaviour, consistent with…”

The first states what happened; the second says what it means. Interpretation, comparison to expected values, and error explanations all wait for the discussion. If you find yourself writing "because", "this shows that", or "this was likely due to", you have probably crossed the line — the description-versus-analysis distinction that runs through all UK marking, explained in what markers actually want.

Report values with the right units and a sensible number of significant figures — matching the precision of your measurement, not your calculator’s display. Where you ran statistics, state the test, the value and the significance clearly (for example, the test statistic and its p-value), and put full data tables in an appendix rather than the body if they are long.

Consistent, precise reporting is a marking criterion in its own right. If you are unsure how to phrase a result formally, the University of Manchester’s Academic Phrasebank gives standard ways to report findings without slipping into interpretation.

A results section is not just tables and figures dropped onto a page — it needs a short guiding text that walks the reader through the data in a logical order, usually following your research question or hypotheses. Each paragraph points to the relevant figure or table, states the key result in words, and moves on. The visuals carry the detail; the text carries the thread.

Keep it in the past tense and impersonal, and resist commentary. For discipline-specific conventions on structure and presentation, Purdue OWL’s guidance on writing in the sciences is a useful reference — but always defer to your own module’s lab report brief.

• Interpreting in the results. The most common error — explanation and comparison belong in the discussion.
• Dumping raw data. Pages of unprocessed readings with no summary; put raw data in an appendix and present the processed results.
• Unlabelled visuals. Figures without axis titles, units, or a caption a reader can understand on its own.
• Duplication. Presenting the same data as a table and a figure, or repeating figure values in the text.
• Vague precision. Quoting too many significant figures, or omitting units.
• Orphaned figures. Tables and figures that are never referred to in the text.

Presentation and referencing are marked too, so keep citation style consistent throughout — our guide to Oxford vs Harvard referencing helps if your report cites sources. For technical and engineering write-ups specifically, My Perfect Writing’s engineering management support focuses on the same standards UK markers assess.