In the crossing of the mutant strands, there were fewer colonies observed than was expected on the control plate (one-hundred and fifty). This might have been due to a dilution error. For the MV plates, there were approximately ninety colonies observed. The reason for this proportion colonies may be due to not plating the same number of cells on the control plate as there should have been. Theoretically, there should have had a 20% survival rate if the optimal exposure was achieved. For the MV plate, the survival rate was 3.3%. This is significantly lower than expected and might be due to errors as mentioned above. There were no mutant phenotypically red colonies observed. This was expected, as you need about 10,000 surviving yeast cells for each mating type (3) to observe surviving mutant colonies that express a red color. The survival rate for our control plate was 6%. This was also much lower than the 20% expected survival rate, for reasons similar to the first plate.
Comments
This paragraph is very well
This paragraph is very well organized and it describes the potential errors. Good job keeping the writing straight forward and not overly wordy.
Consistency
The first numbers of the paragraph are written in words, while at the end are represented in their numerical form. I think it would look better if the whole paragraph referred to all the numbers in their numerical form.
More Confidence
I really liked this paragraph. I did the same lab in Genetics, so I wrote a similar paragraph, but yours is much better! One thing I would say to add is asserting your statements. You say that there are not as many yeast colonies observed as you expected and that may be due to a dilution error. I would say because this is a piece of scientific writing, you should assert that this occurred because of a dilution error. It seems weird since you don't know for sure that a dilution error caused the difference, but I think that is how scientific writing is supposed to be phrased.