Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
"The Challenge of Exploring Venus," suggests that future indeavors for studying Venus, the 2nd planet from the sun and one of Earth's closest neighbors, is worthwhile because of the possibilities of exploring possible forms of life that may have inhabited Venus long ago.

Geological formations on Venus are also similar to those of Earth and by exploring those formations on Venus we could learn a lot about our home planet.

However, the author does not go beyond these assertions and does not provide ample evidence to support that exploring Venus is fundamentally worthy, the author even counter argues explaining that Venus is, and could be, a dangerous human indeavor; not to mention that it is challenging enough just to get there.

Ultimately, the author does not make a strong enough arguement to support the idea of exploring Venus for the benefit of humanity and of Earth.

The author explains the theory of having a balloon like space station that can protect humans from the deadly environment of Venus's surface in paragraph 5.

This possibility however is countered by the uselessness that the author then explains in paragraph 6 writing, "peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions."

It is interesting that the author does not explain that the exploration of Mars, for instance, could be a much safer future indeavor.

In paragraph 2 the author mentions Mars as one of our neighbors but then does not procede to use it in any part of the rest of the article.

By doing so makes it look like he/she intentionally did so for the betterment of his/her own idea.

This article, in the mind of the reader, feels counter intuitive because the author provides more evidence to support the idea that exploring Venus is not worthwhile.

The author explains in paragraph 6, "More importantly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance."

In paragraph 3, the author initially explains that the surface of Venus's "temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet[,]" these conditions are instantaneously deadly to humans and do not provide an argument that would support exploration of such a deadly environment.

Space exploration agencies like NASA have sent in the past, autonomous landing craft to the surface of Venus; none of which have "survived the landing for more than a few hours."

If the best of humanitie's technologies have been unable to conduct any worthwhile field work in the name of science and the only possible solution is to use "old technology called mechanical computers[,]" (paragraph 7) then how would such a computer be able to send a message back to Earth?

The author's article about the exploration of Venus is lacking in just about every available aspect of being worthwhile or viable ideas.

The author makes a good argument, but for the opposite idea that he/she is trying to explain.

By not taking into consideration the fact that any form of space exploration is extremely expensive - even more so in accordance with Venus - there is little to no good reason to explore Venus for the sake of humanitie's and/or Earth's betterment.

Score: 5