They have generally shown good grammar and spelling throughout Ã¢â‚¬â€œ with only a few Ã¢â‚¬ËœtyposÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ such as Ã¢â‚¬ËœnadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ instead of Ã¢â‚¬ËœandÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. They have used scientific terms usually correctly, with a few notable mistakes, for example they described the elastic limit as the point where the spring snaps Ã¢â‚¬â€œ the elastic limit is actually the point after which the spring undergoes permanent deformation under stress, and so will no longer return to its original shape once the stress is removed. They have at times shown a lack of knowledge about Physics conventions Ã¢â‚¬â€œ for example they used 10ms-2 as the acceleration due to gravity, when it is more accurate and customary to use (1) ms-2 for this figure. They have also laid their report out rather unusually Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it is much better to describe the experiment logically and more chronologically, beginning by describing the aims of the experiment and a hypothesis, then a clear diagram and description of method (including Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfair testÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsafety precautionsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ sections), followed by a table of results and graphs. This should be followed by an analysis of results and conclusion, and then some suggestions for improvement. As the author has redone the experiment with these modifications, the second experiment should be written up as before, like a new experiment, then the whole thing concluded by a comparison of the two methods. This would have made the experiment much easier to follow and understand, and is, in my experience, essential for gaining good marks. However, the experiment was directly related to HookeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s law and was clearly carried out well, which helps to make up for the poor layout.