Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Throughout the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus," the author gives background information on Venus and the many dangers of travelling to the planet for exploration. While the author explains the dangers very well, he does not thoroughly explain why scientists should travel there despite all of the risks.

In the article, the author explains the many assorted dangers of travelling to Venus. He states that everything from the "thick atmosphere" of carbon dioxide to the "clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid" make it difficult to even get into the planet's atmosphere. Once scientists finally are able to get down to the surface, where the most important research can be done, they are faced with average temperatures "over 800 degrees Fahrenheit" and an "atmospheric pressure 90 times greater" than what it is here on Earth. These conditions severely limit the possibilities for any kind of exploration because most materials, which would be used for ships and measuring instruments, wouldn't make it through the atmosphere, let alone to the surface where they'd likely be crushed or melted.

Despite the terrible conditions, the author says "the value of returning to Venus seems indisputable," but does not thoroughly support this point. The main point he gives toward the reasoning for why scientists should continue to strive for the exploration of Venus is that "it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet," and because of this there is a need to try and discover what casued it to change into the terribly dangerous planet it is now. While it may be very important to discover why Venus has become the way it is now, this reasoning does not very well support the dangers that are currently faced with our modern trechnologies. He also says that we should not only explore because of the "insight to be gained," but also because the nature of human curiosity will likely lead to even more chalenging endeavors in the future. While it is very possible, and most likely, for there to be even more challenging endeavors forthe human race to find and crave to explore, one cannot simply say that the reasons we should send scientists to another planet, until there has been safe equipment made, are for exploration and the likelihood of future missions.

Human curiosity has casued many dangerous missions to be taken before, Magellan's circumnavigation, Louis and Clark's cross-country expedition, and even the first trip to the moon; each trip had its own dangers and as many of them were addressed as possible, but that does not mean scientists should throw astronauts into space to a dangerous planet without ensuring they have the safest possible trip, and currently that is simply not possible. The author does try to explain that exploration, despite all of the possible dangers, is important but only provides one valid argument for this, that it is necessary, which quite frankly is simply not enough.

Score: 4