Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:33 AM
Posted 27 January 2009 - 11:46 AM
I always like to play "devil's advocate" for a discussion and see potential flaws in my hypothesis. Then, I try to explain how my results negates the flaws, or I design some future experiments to address those flaws.
Hope that helps!
Posted 27 January 2009 - 12:37 PM
Relate all or the most important/newest other papers dealing with your topics to your results, where are the matches, where the differences. And why.
What and with which significance are your results really showing? I.e. you should refer to the aims of the introduction and answer the questions if possible. Or show that the hypotheses were right or wrong. And always be careful with phrasing. Better write "the results suggest" instead of "the results clearly show".
What questions are still open? Are there new questions out of your results?
Edited by hobglobin, 27 January 2009 - 12:38 PM.
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.