Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" did a fair job at arguing their claim, that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author used their thesis, counter-arguements, and rebutals to get across their point that Venus is a worthwhile investment to study. Some areas they exceeded and others they did not hit right on the ball.

The author throughout the essay did not convey a very well stated thesis. Typically, a writer of an arguementative essay would feature their thesis openly, so that the reader is able to see what side the author is pushing forward. However, this author did not do this. The first paragraph introduces the topic of Venus with an interesting hook, but does not give the reader their side. The reader needs a thesis, without one the reader is not going to be able to have their opinion on a topic swayed. The author's current attempt at a thesis statement , "While Venus is simple to see from the distant but safe vantage point of Earth, it has proved very challenging place to examine more closely," does not state what side they are on clearly. Their best declaration of the side they are on is in their very last paragraph. The author wrote, "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." This is a very strongly worded thesis, but would have been much better if placed in the starting paragraph. Their side on the topic was acknowledged, but not as well as it could have been if they had set up their thesis correctly.

Beyond the thesis, the author used many counter-arguements in their writing. This is one of their strong suits, acknowledging both sides of an arguement is one of the best ways to convey your opinion affectively, while still being able to keep opposing side of the arguement interested and have their minds open to change. The author is for the exploration of Venus, but consistently chooses to bring up the problems that doing so faces. The author writes about the difficulties about exploring Venus, because of the planet's extreme environment. They opposed their own side in paragraph three by saying, "These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals." This is an affective strategy, because people who may oppose exploration to Venus may say something similar to this. The author is arguing their own point to establish reliability and trust amongst with people who favor not exploring Venus. The author showing that they see the problems with exploring Venus shows that they are open minded and open to their mind being changed, and this will in turn have the reader do the same.

Furthermore, the author was able to affectively state rebutals and reinforce their own opinion with facts. From the example stated earlier, regaurding the extreme conditions in Venus, the author was able to provide a logical solution to the weather without using any opinions. The author wrote,"NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow sceintists to float above the fray." The author then goes onto describe NASA's plan in full depth, and going into fine detail about the floating contraption that would suspend the astronauts safely above the harsh atmosphere of Venus. They then state, "Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." The author is displaying a solution for the conditions, and even the minor flaws it has. The author going into detail about the solution for the extreme conditions in Venus and even conceding a bit when saying, "Not easy conditions but survivable for humans," helps argue their point. They affectively refuted the counter-arguements by using factual evidence in their rebutal, and deemed themselves trustworthy by the opposing side by even conceding slightly on a few issues.

The author of "The Callenge of Exploring Venus" did a fair job when arguing that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. While the author did accurately present the dangers and solutions for the dangerous parts of exploring Venus, they failed to create a strong thesis. The author exceeded when giving factual information about the topic to help the reading get on their side of the arguement; do to them struggling to get across their position on if Venus exploration is worthwhile, some of the provided information they gave was not used to it's full potential when changing the reader's opinion.

Score: 6