A Detailed Run Through of a 20/20 Chemistry Research Investigation - Full Exemplar Provided!

David Sun
Apr 16
20 min read

So, you’ve been handed this Chemistry Research Investigation assignment, and maybe you’re feeling a mix of excitement and “Wait, how do I even start?” Don’t worry—we’ve all been there! This guide is your trusty roadmap, to ensure you achieve the maximum amount of 'free' internal marks possible! Make sure to access my 20/20 exemplar below to follow along with the explanation and to use as inspiration!

🔍 Crafting the Perfect Research Question

Let’s start with the beating heart of your Chemistry Research Investigation: the research question. Trust me on this—nail this part, and everything else flows a whole lot easier. Why? Because your research question sets the tone for your entire report. It's like choosing the destination before mapping out your road trip.

Here’s a step-by-step breakdown on how to go from “I have no clue what I’m doing” to “Okay wait, this is actually pretty solid.”

🧠 Step 1: Break Down the Claim

Start with your given claim. For example:

"Synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring drugs are more effective."

Your job? Pick it apart. Which parts matter most? What are “Naturally occurring drugs”? What does "synthetic derivatives" mean in a real-world context? What counts as “effective”? That’s where you start shaping your variables.

🔬 Step 2: Define Your Variables

Now let’s bring in some science-y structure.

Independent variable: This is the thing you’re changing. For the claim above, maybe you compare a synthetic drug to its natural counterpart. I went with heroin (synthetic) vs morphine (natural).
Dependent variable: This is what you’re measuring to test your claim. “Effectiveness” is vague, so I dug deeper:
- Lipophilicity (how fat-loving the drug is) → measured in log P
- Tissue absorbance → measured by change in bloodstream concentration (μmol/L)
- Painkilling efficacy → measured using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), in mm

Doing some prior research here is super helpful. It tells you what matters and how to measure it—which instantly boosts the credibility of your investigation.

🧪 Step 3: (Optional, but Useful) Think About Control Variables

Some schools love this, others are chill about it. Either way, it’s good practice to ask: are there any background factors I need to keep the same? For drug effectiveness, maybe it’s the age group of the patients, or a specific population you’re focusing on. You don’t always need this in the question itself, but keep it in the back of your mind.

🧩 Step 4: Put It All Together

Here’s a simple structure you can try (but don’t be afraid to adapt it):

"To what extent is/does the (independent variable) affect the (dependent variable), measured by (units), given that (control variables)?"

Using my example, here’s what I came up with:

To what extent is the synthetic derivative heroin more effective than the naturally occurring morphine as a painkiller, indicated by lipophilicity (log P), tissue absorption through decrease in bloodstream concentration (μmol/L), and painkilling efficacy (Visual Analog Scale, mm)?

Neat, right? 👏 It’s specific, measurable, and clearly ties back to the original claim. Also notice I didn’t include control variables in mine—but if you do, just tack them onto the end.

✍️ Writing the Rationale – AKA Why Your Investigation Actually Makes Sense

So you've got your beautifully crafted research question. Nice! But now it’s time to answer the big “why?” Why this question? Why these variables? Why should anyone care?

That’s where your rationale comes in. Think of it like telling the story of how your claim evolved into a focused research question, while showing off some background knowledge and a few chemistry flexes along the way.

Here’s a breakdown of how to write a strong, top-band rationale without losing your mind in the process.

📌 Step 1: Start with the Claim

Open strong by stating or paraphrasing the original claim your research is based on.

For example: “Synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring drugs are more effective.”

This gives your reader a clear starting point for the rest of your logic.

My Example: This report investigates the claim “Synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring drugs are more effective.”

🌎 Step 2: Build the Bigger Picture

Now zoom out a bit. This is your chance to show why the topic is relevant in the real world—and start subtly hinting why it’s worth investigating.

Some things you might mention:

The role of painkillers in modern medicine
What naturally occurring drugs are
What synthetic derivatives are, why scientists make them, and how they can have better properties than their natural counterparts

✨ Pro tip: Slide in a fact like “Over 80% of medicinal drugs in the US are synthetically derived (Pan et al., 2013)” to subtly boost your credibility and show why this matters in real life.

My example:

The application for drugs is extensive in modern medicine, including painkillers and antibiotics. Natural drugs are not chemically modified, produced by plants or animals. Synthetic drugs are organic compounds artificially derived via chemical synthesis from natural drugs, modified for several purposes, including to magnify therapeutic effects or increase adaptability in patients (Karimi et al, 2015). In the US, more than 80% of medicinal drugs are synthetically derived (Pan et al, 2013).

💊 Step 3: Zoom In On Your Investigation

Now take the general stuff and link it to your specific example.

You might include:

Why you chose morphine (natural) and heroin (synthetic)
A quick explanation of how heroin is made from morphine (mention that sneaky esterification reaction!)
The three properties you’re focusing on and why they matter:
- Lipophilicity (measured in log P) – more lipophilic = crosses cell membranes more easily
- Tissue absorbance (measured in μmol/L in bloodstream) – lower concentration means more absorption
- Painkilling efficacy (measured using the Visual Analog Scale, in mm) – more pain reduction = more effective

👉 Keep it relevant to chemistry. Don’t get sidetracked into full-on pharmacology.

🧪 Step 4: Flex Those Chemistry Muscles

Time to bring in the theory. This section shows that you understand the chemistry behind your research. Some ideas to touch on:

Heroin and morphine have different functional groups – ester vs hydroxyl
Ester groups are more hydrophobic, making heroin more lipid-soluble
Bring in polarity and like-dissolves-like: lipid-soluble drugs pass through cell membranes more easily → more effective

This is where your organic chem knowledge really shines!

My example:

Morphine has three fused non-polar benzene rings (phenanthrene skeleton) and two polar hydroxyl functional groups located on carbon-3 and carbon-6, enabling hydrogen bonding (Bloom, 2020). The condensation reaction (esterification) replaces the hydrogen on the hydroxyl groups with acetyl groups from the acetic anhydride to produce two ester functional groups, reducing Heroin’s ability to hydrogen bond, thus decreasing polarity since esters are less polar than hydroxyls.

📊 Step 5: Lead Smoothly Into the Research Question

Round things off by connecting the dots. You’ve shown why the claim matters, you’ve explained your drug choices and properties, and now you can say something like:

Evidence regarding values, and bloodstream concentrations and VAS ratings over time after drug administration for morphine and heroin are required to assess whether synthetic derivatives are more effective than naturally occurring drugs.

Boom. Logical, clean, and flows straight into your RQ.

💡 Bonus Tips from Someone Who’s Been There:

Real-world relevance = good vibes. Even if not explicitly marked, it makes your rationale more compelling.
Use diagrams. If a picture explains it better than a paragraph, go for it. They're free in terms of word count!
Structure your paragraphs clearly (e.g. one for background, one for drug chemistry, one for measurement methods). Makes it so much easier for markers to follow.
Don’t over-reference. But if you quote data or facts you obviously didn’t just “know,” definitely chuck in a source.
Aim for 350–600 words. Enough to explain things well without waffling.

🔍 Source Selection

Alright, now for the part that’s sneakily important in your research investigation: your sources.

Let’s break down how to ace this part without spending 8 hours scrolling through dead-end PDFs.

✅ What Makes a “Good” Source?

When teachers say “use good sources,” here’s what they actually mean:

Relevant – Does the source actually connect to your research question? If you’re comparing drug effectiveness, make sure the paper is about that, not just “drug use in society” or something vague.
Credible – This means scientific journals, published research papers, official databases… not some dodgy blog called pharmafacts101.info. Use stuff that professionals trust.
Depth – Can you actually analyse the data? A graph showing drug concentration over time = great. One single number with no context = not helpful.

💡 Pro Tip: Start With Sources, THEN Write Your Report

I can’t stress this enough: your sources will make or break your investigation.

Sure, you might think of a 10/10 research question, but if you can’t find any decent data to back it up, then it’s not a 10/10 RQ anymore — it’s a trap 😵‍💫

So here’s the move:

Find 2–3 high quality sources that you know can work with your claim.
Skim through them to check they have real data (tables, graphs, multiple values).
THEN start building your rationale, research question, and investigation around that.

🔍 Where to Actually Look?

Alright, controversial opinion incoming...

School library search tools? Meh. They’re okay, but honestly, I get better results just using Google — if you know what you’re looking for.

Here’s what I recommend:

Google Scholar: If you want guaranteed credibility (but less likely to find that exact perfect match).
Google (regular): Honestly great for skimming and scanning, especially if you’re just looking for a graph or figure to back your point.
Image search: This is actually my go-to. I literally searched “heroin vs morphine tissue absorbance graph” and found gold on the first try — charts showing heroin drops out of the bloodstream faster = more absorbance.
Friendly databases to keep on your radar (the ones that usually have free-to-access science papers):
- PubMed
- ScienceDirect
- ResearchGate

✨ And don’t forget: you don’t need 20 sources. Just 2–3 good ones can carry your whole investigation.

🧠 Final Tips to Save Your Sanity

Don’t start writing until you’re confident in your sources. Seriously, it’ll save you hours of backtracking.
Try to find sources that complement each other — e.g., one paper might give you lipophilicity, another might cover drug concentration, and a third might go into painkilling efficacy.
Look for graphs and tables! They’re way easier to analyse than walls of text.
Be a bit picky — if a source is kind of mediocre, don’t use it just to hit a number. Quality > quantity.

📈 Trends, Patterns & Relationships – The Meat of Your Analysis

Alright, so you’ve nailed your research question, locked in your rationale, sourced some killer graphs… now it’s time to write the section where you actually analyse the data.

This is where things start getting real. The Trends, Patterns and Relationships section is where you prove you’ve actually looked at your data and understood it — and it’s usually the biggest chunk of your analysis.

Let’s break down exactly what you need to do (and what you don’t need to overthink).

🧭 What You’re Actually Writing About

Let’s quickly define what each part of this section is actually asking for:

Trend = The overall direction of your data
→ “As X increases, Y increases/decreases.”
Pattern = Repeated stuff
→ “This happened over and over,” or “This variable was always higher.”
Relationship = The type of mathematical correlation
→ “It was linear,” or “It followed an exponential curve.”

💡Important note: You don’t need all three. In fact, if you just write a solid trend paragraph for each source, that can still score top-band. But if you’ve got patterns or relationships you can include — go for it. Just don’t force it.

📝 How to Write a Killer Trends Paragraph

Here’s a step-by-step you can follow almost every time:

Start with the general trend.

“As the lipophilicity (log P) of the drug increases, the rate of tissue absorption increases.”

Add specific data values.

“Specifically, when log P increased from 0.9 (morphine) to 2.6 (heroin), the drug concentration in the bloodstream dropped from 1.7 μmol/L to 0.4 μmol/L within 30 minutes, indicating faster tissue uptake.”

Optional but great: compare data sets or variables.

“Across the same timeframe, heroin’s concentration decreased 4.25 times faster than morphine’s.”

And boom — that’s a solid paragraph right there. 🙌

My example:

Figure 5 shows the trend that as time increased, mean blood concentration of heroin and morphine decreased. The decrease for heroin is significantly more rapid than morphine: after 30 minutes, heroin concentration decreased from to while morphine concentration decreased from to . The total decrease for heroin concentration () is 33.21 times greater than morphine () after 30 minutes. Furthermore, heroin and morphine concentration dropped to at the 11th and 187th minutes respectively, suggesting that it took 17 times longer for morphine to reach .

🌀 What Counts as a Pattern?

Patterns are less about direction, more about repetition. These are super easy to include if your data shows:

One drug consistently outperforms another
There’s a repeating value range
Reliability levels stay the same across repeats

Example:

“Across all time intervals, heroin displayed consistently lower bloodstream concentrations than morphine, suggesting faster and more efficient tissue absorbance.”

That’s a one-liner that adds depth to your analysis without killing your word count.

➕ Identifying Relationships

If your source gives you a line of best fit or an equation, comment on it!

“The relationship between log P and drug absorbance followed a logarithmic curve.”
“A linear relationship was observed between pain relief (VAS, mm) and drug lipophilicity.”

Even if there’s no exact equation, you can still say “appears linear,” or “the relationship plateaued after a certain point.” Don’t overdo it — just name it and move on unless there’s more to say.

💡 Quick Tips to Keep in Mind

Write trends for every source – This is the most important part. Even if you don’t spot a pattern or relationship, always describe the trend.
Use values – It makes your work sound more scientific and helps you stand out from basic “the graph went up” writing.
Compare where possible – If you’re comparing two drugs, do it directly with actual values. Avoid vague comparisons like “heroin was better.”
Be efficient – Word count runs out fast here. Focus on the most important parts of the graph or table.

🔬 Interpretation – The Why Behind the Graph

So you’ve written your Trends, Patterns and Relationships. You’ve told us what the graph shows.

Now it’s time for the Interpretation section — where you explain why those trends happened using actual chemistry. If TPR is the “what,” this is the “so what?”

It’s just as important, and worth the same number of marks as the trends section. So don’t skimp on it. This is where your research and chemistry knowledge shine through.

🎯 What’s the Point of Interpretation?

Basically, your job here is to:

✅ Link the trend back to your chemistry✅ Explain what’s causing it✅ Bring in extra info beyond the rationale if you can✅ Show that you actually understand the science — not just what the graph says

🧪 How to Write a Strong Interpretation

There’s no strict formula here (finally, right?). But there is a structure that usually works well:

Step-by-Step Game Plan:

1. Explain the chemistry behind it

Dig into the molecules. What actually makes heroin more lipophilic? Why does that matter?

“This can be attributed to heroin’s ester functional groups, which replace the hydroxyl groups in morphine. Esters are less polar than hydroxyls, reducing the molecule’s ability to hydrogen bond with water and increasing lipophilicity.”

2. Add some extra research or new reasoning

Go one step deeper than your rationale — maybe discuss hydrogen bonding, molar mass, electron distribution, etc.

“Additionally, heroin’s reduced ability to form hydrogen bonds decreases its water solubility, allowing it to cross lipid membranes more efficiently via passive diffusion.”

3. Link to effectiveness as a painkiller

Always bring it back to the research question. Why does this chemistry make heroin “more effective”?

“As a result, heroin reaches the central nervous system more rapidly than morphine, increasing the speed and intensity of its analgesic effects.”

My example:

Drugs absorb into tissues through transmembrane diffusion. The cellular membrane primary consists of phospholipids, containing chains of non-polar fatty acids in the form (Banks, 2009). Nonpolar solutes dissolve in nonpolar solvents due to dispersion forces – temporary dipole-dipole attractions formed from unevenly distributed electrons between nearby atoms. Polar solutes have hindered ability to dissolve in nonpolar solvents as the solvent’s dispersion forces are too weak to break their hydrogen-bonds (Marks, 2017). Heroin’s lower polarity and decreased ability to hydrogen-bond due to its ester groups result in higher lipid solubility and ability to cross the cellular membrane, thus greater tissue absorbance.

⚠️ Limitations – What Holds Back Your Data

You’ve just flexed all your chemistry muscles explaining your trends. But science isn’t perfect — and neither are your sources.

This section is all about pointing out the shortcomings in your data that could affect the strength of your conclusion.

And don’t stress — you only need ONE solid limitation per source to hit top band. Think of it as showing your marker that you’re not just blindly trusting every graph you see.

🧠 What Counts as a Limitation?

A limitation = a flaw or weakness in the data or method that reduces:

✅ Reliability (are the results consistent and repeatable?)
✅ Validity (are the results actually answering the research question?)

They usually fall into two big categories:

🗃 Limitations from the Data Itself

📉 Small domain or few data points
→ Makes it hard to tell if the trend is meaningful or just a fluke
❓ Missing data
→ E.g. if one drug has a missing value at a critical time point — now you’re forced to assume things
📊 Large uncertainty
→ Think: big error bars, high standard deviation, or inconsistent trials

🧪 Limitations from the Experimental Procedure

👥 Small sample size
→ Makes it easy for outliers to mess with your data
🌡️ Uncontrolled variables
→ E.g. no mention of temperature control, inconsistent dosage, etc.
🧍‍♂️ Human/instrument/random error
→ Flaws in how the experiment was conducted, whether mentioned or not

🧱 How to Structure Your Limitation (3 steps):

🔹 1. Identify the issue – clearly state the flaw and where it shows up in the source🔹 2. Explain the effect – how does it influence the dependent variable?🔹 3. Link to impact – what does this mean for reliability/validity of your data?

A limitation is that all patients in the experiment were opioid-dependent for over 12 months, which may affect their bodily response and absorption rate of morphine and heroin compared to regular patients due to increased tolerance, decreasing validity of trends and applicability of conclusions to a wider population.

📏 General Rule of Thumb for Word Count for the Analysis:

700–950 words

Yeah, this part can get wordy — fast. So plan it out carefully. If you go into detail for every data point, you’ll run out of words before you even hit the second graph.

✅ Writing the Conclusion – Clean Finish

You’ve just taken the marker through your rationale, analysis, interpretation, and limitations. Now it’s time to bring it all together in a crisp, well-supported conclusion.

Think of this like a three-step landing sequence:

✍️ 1. Restate the Aim

Paraphrase your research question — don’t copy-paste it word-for-word. Show the marker you understand what your investigation was really trying to figure out.

📌 2. Answer the Question

Give a clear, direct answer to the RQ based on the trends in your data. Avoid waffling — choose a side and back it up.

📊 3. Use Data From All Three Sources

Use specific numerical data values from each source to back up your claim. This is essential for a top-band conclusion.

You don’t need to go overboard — just one solid data point per source is enough if it’s relevant and well-chosen.

🔍 Optional Extras

If you have word count left:

Add a brief comment about why you saw these trends (e.g. lipophilicity, hydrogen bonding)
Mention a key limitation that might impact how confidently you can generalise this conclusion

My example:

The investigation explored the effectiveness of morphine and heroin as painkillers, indicated by lipophilicity, tissue absorbance and painkilling efficacy. McLeod et al (2004) shows that heroin’s is 3.15 times higher than morphine’s, suggesting 99.64% of heroin and 85.71% of morphine would dissolve into lipids. Rook et al (2005) shows that heroin’s blood concentration decreased more rapidly: after 30 minutes, heroin concentration decreased by while morphine by . Kaiko et al (1981) indicates that heroin’s pain-relief VAS was higher from 0-2 hours (3mm higher in the first hour) but lower from 3-6 hours (2mm and 6mm lower in the 4th and 6th hour). These findings relate to their differences in molecular structures (-OH vs -), causing changes in polarity and hydrogen-bonding ability. In conclusion, heroin is a more effective painkiller than morphine, indicated by higher lipophilicity, tissue absorbance and initial painkilling efficacy.

💡 Pro Tip

Even though this section is short (~100-150 words), it pulls everything together. Think of it like your elevator pitch to the examiner — if they skimmed just this part, they should still understand your investigation and what you concluded.

🧠 Evaluation of Quality of Evidence – Your Investigator Mode

You're no longer describing or analysing — now you’re evaluating the trustworthiness and usefulness of each of your sources. This means digging into:

Credibility of authors (are they experts, researchers, PhD, several publications or inexperienced and amateur?)
Credibility of the source (was it published in a scientific journal or a random website?)
Purpose of the source (research/education or written for children and entertainment?)
Number of citations and peer review (the more cited the paper is, the more credible it is in science literature)
Datedness (was it recent research or potentially outdated from decades ago?)
Conflicts of interest (was the research government-sponsored? If so, perhaps they felt an urge to change the data for certain purposes)

✳️ 1. Strengths of the Source

Highlight what’s done well. This can be from:

Credibility: Are the authors recognised experts? Is the paper peer-reviewed? Is it published in a reputable journal (e.g. Journal of Pharmacology, The Lancet)?
Procedure: Did they use a large sample size? Control variables? State clear methodology?
Data: Are there many data points across a wide domain? Is there statistical analysis (e.g. mean values, standard deviations, significance)?

⚠️ 2. Weaknesses of the Source

Here’s where you can reuse or rephrase the limitations. The goal is to highlight:

Credibility flaws: Was it a random website? Outdated paper? Unqualified author?
Data issues: Small domain, limited time points, inconsistent values?
Procedure issues: Small sample size, uncontrolled variables, unclear method?

🎯 3. Relevance to the RQ

You now need to ask: Did this source actually help me answer my question?

If yes, how? What data did it contribute?
If partially, what was missing or limited?
If not really, explain why its value was minimal

My example:

Figure 6’s lead author is Kaiko, associate director at Purdue Pharma, with 100 peer-reviewed publication. The paper was published in the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine for analgesic research intentions and cited 42 times, displaying reliability. However, funding from the National Cancer Institute may create a conflict of interest, reducing reliability (Kaiko et al, 1981). While this source provides relevant data for painkilling efficacy, the VAS scale is an unreliable quantitative measure and cannot consistently measure pain-relief, reducing validity.

🔭 Extrapolations: What Else Can We Expect?

Nice — you’ve reached the Extrapolation of Findings section, where you zoom out and show that your research doesn’t exist in a vacuum. This is your chance to connect your investigation to the broader claim, and it's split into two clear parts:

1. Does Your Research Support the Claim?

This is where you repackage the core takeaway from your RQ and check whether it aligns with the overall claim.

Structure:

Restate the answer to your RQ.
Back up your answer with a brief summary of findings from your three sources (don’t go overboard — 2-3 lines is enough).
State explicitly whether your research supports or contradicts the overarching claim.
Wrap up with a reminder that your research is limited in scope compared to the full range of the claim.

🔁 Example Template:

The findings demonstrate that synthetic heroin is a more effective painkiller than naturally occurring morphine, with higher lipophilicity, tissue absorbance and initial painkilling efficacy, supporting the claim that synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring drugs are more effective. However, the claim is not limited to morphine and heroin and opioid painkillers.

2. Extrapolations

Now that your findings support the claim, it’s time to make 2 strong extrapolations. These are extensions of your research — think of them as educated guesses about similar cases based on your evidence.

Use the “4-extensions” strategy:

Independent variable: investigate other painkilling drugs which aren't morphine and heroin.
Nature of independent variable: I chose to investigate painkilling drugs. Can investigate other types of drugs
Dependent variable: I investigated lipophilicity, tissue absorption and painkilling efficacy as criteria for effectiveness. I can investigate other properties that have links to painkilling effectiveness
Control variables: Not present here, but let's say I conducted the research for a certain demographic. I can investigate another demographic, where trends might be different because of…

Structure for Each Extrapolation:

Start with a clear extension statement.
Predict what trends you might expect, based on your investigation.
Optionally, note any caveats or challenges with the extrapolation.

My example:

Morphine and heroin can be extrapolated to other natural/synthetic drugs with similar chemical structure (functional groups) and properties (polarity and hydrogen-bonding), which should closely exhibit the observed trends under the same criteria. The finding that synthetic painkillers are more effective can be extrapolated to other drug types like antibiotics. However, this extrapolation is difficult as the three criteria investigated, specifically painkilling efficacy, have limited relevance in indica ng the effectiveness of antibiotics, thus other criteria are required.

🔧 Improvements (Fix what limited your investigation)

You need two good improvements to score top-band for the section.

For each:

Restate the limitation (pull from your Limitations section).
Propose a better version of the data — i.e., a source that fixes the issue.
Explain the benefit (increased reliability or validity).

My example:

Data in McLeod et al (2004) was limited by a lack of control measures for temperature and pH when calculating log 𝑃. An improvement is to find data with a clear calculation procedure that keeps temperature and pH constant while calculating log 𝑃, improving accuracy and validity. Furthermore, data in Kaiko et al (1981) could not fairly compare morphine and heroin’s painkilling efficacy as morphine’s dosage was doubled. Another improvement is to find data where the dosage of both drugs is kept constant, improving comparability and validity.

➕ Extensions (Expand what you explored)

You need two good improvements to score top-band for the section. For a mental refresher on how to come up with different types of extensions, remember to refer back to the extrapolation section.

For each:

State what you originally explored (your criteria and/or drugs).
Propose a new area to explore (a variable or drug you didn’t look at).
Explain the value — what this adds or what trends you might expect.

My example:

This investigation explored the criteria of lipophilicity, tissue absorbance and painkilling efficacy. An extension is to explore other properties including biological half-life and bloodstream bioavailability, producing additional evidence regarding other indicators of painkiller effectiveness. Furthermore, this report explored morphine and heroin. Another extension is to investigate other natural/synthetic drugs like salicylic acid and aspirin, exploring whether their different chemical structures and properties will produce similar trends under the same criteria. These extensions increase the investigation’s validity towards the claim.

Great! Here are some final tips to help you keep your communication clear and organized for a top-band report:

📄 Title of the Report

Make your title clear and directly related to your independent and dependent variables. For example:"Morphine vs Heroin Effectiveness as Painkillers"This is concise and informs the reader about the focus of your investigation.

📝 Structure & Paragraphing

Use Subheadings: Structure your report with clear subheadings (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, etc.) to break up the content and guide the reader.
Paragraphing: Each new idea or point should begin with a new paragraph to ensure readability.

📊 Figures and Tables

Figures: All figures (graphs, charts, images) should have captions below them. Example:

Figure 1. Effect of morphine and heroin on painkilling efficacy over time.
Tables: Table captions should be above the table. Example:

Table 1. Summary of lipophilicity values for morphine and heroin.
Data Transformation: If you need to transform data from your sources, feel free to make your own graphs or tables. Just ensure they are easy to understand.
Image Quality: Ensure your graphs and tables are high quality (clear, legible, and well formatted).
Decimal Places: Round values to an appropriate number of decimal places. Don’t be overly precise if the data doesn’t support it.

🧮 Referencing Figures/Tables

Whenever you mention figures or tables in the text, be sure to refer to them properly, like so:"As shown in Figure 2, the tissue absorption rate of heroin significantly exceeded that of morphine."Or,"As shown in Table 3, the painkilling efficacy was measured using the Visual Analog Scale."

✂️ Word Count & Efficiency

Word Limit: Stay under 2000 words. If you go over, it’s common for some schools to stop reading at the 2000-word mark.
In-Text References, Captions, Tables, Appendix: These sections don’t count toward the word limit. Take advantage of this to add extra details without affecting your total word count.
Be Concise: Don’t worry too much about making your English sound "elegant" — keep it clear, concise, and accurate. Repeating words like “increase” in a scientific context is okay as long as the meaning is clear.

🔄 Final Check

Before submission, do a final check to ensure:

Clear Structure: Each section is well-organized with headings and subheadings.
Proper Referencing: You’ve referred to figures/tables correctly.
Accurate Data: All figures, tables, and data points are accurately presented and referenced.
Concise Writing: Avoid unnecessary wordiness but ensure you cover all points clearly.

You Did It—Now Go Crush That Report!

And there you have it—your ultimate cheat sheet for acing the Chemistry Research Investigation!

By now, you’ve got the tools to:

Craft a killer research question (no vagueness allowed!).
Analyze data like a pro (trends, patterns, and chemistry smarts included).
Write a conclusion that packs a punch (with data-backed confidence).
Evaluate your sources (because not all Google results are created equal).

Remember, year 12 is all execution: you've done reports like this before, so use your valuable knowledge and previous feedback to nail it when it matters most. But don't stress, you've got this! Have a bit of fun - science is all about exploration, and your investigation is your chance to dig into something you find cool. Now go write that report, own those graphs, and impress your teacher!