Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The face on Mars can be explained many ways. Some ways may be that it was aliens. Some may say that it is just a unusual natural formation. There is no dought in my mind that it is a natural formation. There are many ways to explain that it is a natural formation.

First, here on earth we have many natural formations that stand out and have plenty of explanation behind it. One of them could be the dunes in the sahara. I am going to compare this to the face on Mars because wind can move sand, dirt, and dust. The wind could have shaped the pace on mars. Erotion could have played a big key in this too. The rock could have eroded from the dirt and sand rubbing against it. Even a metior from a long time ago could have shaped the face. Yes it is odd but if you see in the 19776 photo it is pretty well shaped so it had to be made by aleins around that time. Then look at the 2001 picture and it is eroded and not shaped like the other one. It is just a process planets go through and even earth goes through.

Secondly, the clouds and the camera could have made a little change in the look of it. It most likely is the camera from Viking 1. Nasa even said in paragraph 8 that they couldn't get a clean shot of it through the red clouds. Some may argue that with such an old camera how did Viking 1 get a really nice shot of it. Well that is a good point but it might have occured in that time era because it was in a nice condition to our pictures. Did you ever think though that it is just a rock that probably has alot of sand on it. Look at the 2001 picture, it is in an oval-square like shape. But look at the top of it. It looks like the wind has shaped dunes over the rock. And since the sand has moved it doesn't have the eyes and the perfect shape anymore. Viking 1 had a old type of camera on it. Today we have outstanding cameras and technology and we don't see the face anymore. Which one would you trust, the antique camera hundreds of millions of miles away, or next generation cameras?

Last but not least, it could be a rise in lava or underground material. Mars has the same inner layers as earth so don't you think it could be techtonic plate activity. An earthquake could cause an uprise in crust and rock. In paragraph 12 Jim Garvin, chief scientist for NASA's Mars Exploration Program, said that it reminded him of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. It could be a lava dome on Mars; however goes back to techtonic plate activity.

There alot of ifs, ands, or buts in this conversation. I am not saying that there was never life on Mars or there is no life in the universe but us, I am saying that it was most likely caused by natural causes. It could very well be that it was created by water or an ocean. The Mars face was created by natural causes.

Score: 4