# Two potential ways of presenting results, is there a preference?

In a short paper I am writing, I have developed a fairly complex model. To express it in a highly watered down fashion, the purpose of the paper is to study the variation of a Variable Y with an independent Variable M.

My current way of presenting the results section is as follows:

1. Show the most important result upfront: plot M vs Y. However its difficult to understand the variation just from this plot, because of the complex nature of the underlying physics. Hence..
2. Describe the fundamental physics in the domain as a function of time and space c(x,t,M). Plot c(x,t,M) as a function of x and t. Describe why c(x,t,M) makes sense from a fundamental physics perspective. x=space, t=time.
3. Plot C1(t,M). C1(t,M)=F(c(x,t,M)), and explain why C1(t,M) makes sense
4. Y(M)=F1(C1(t,M)). So Tie #1 and #3 together, and describe why it makes sense and its implications.

The reason why I chose the above logic structure is because I thought I should present the most important result (plot M vs Y) first. I also learnt about this method of presenting results in a management consulting competitions, and I thought it makes sense at that time.

However, I am starting to feel that maybe this is making it more complicated and is not the way academic journals work. I tried looking at some results, but I am not able to directly relate their work to mine.

I am thinking of an alternate structure

1. Describe the fundamental physics in the domain as a function of time and space c(x,t,M). Plot c(x,t,M) as a function of x and t. Describe why c(x,t,M) makes sense from a fundamental physics perspective.
2. Plot C1(t,M)=F(c(x,t,M)), and explain why C1(t,M) makes sense
3. plot M vs Y. Explain why it makes sense and the implications of the trend.

Do you think that the second logic structure is better?

Hope this make sense, or I can explain more..

• I would prefer second way of demonstration. – Coder Sep 1 '16 at 10:56