Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author's claim in the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is not well supported by the evidence provided, and the reasoning behind the evidence. The author claims that the planet Venus would be a worthy goal to pursue, despite the dangerous conditions and harmful atmosphere that the planet posseses. The author provides information on possible ways that we could overcome the challenge of landing on the planet Venus, but no clear reason as to why we should pursue this goal besides his own rationalization of a reason provided at the end of the article. Not only is the evidence that the author provides theoretical in the efficiency of the tools stated on another planet, but the purpose of the tools in collecting samples and taking photos is not descibed or elaborated on. Despite the risks, the author has no clear reason for the benefit of landing on Venus, and the tools that the author proposes do not support the idea that it would be possible to land on Venus and actively collect samples or take pictures.

The author claims that the value of returning to Venus "seems indisputible" in paragraph 4, but the only reason for this claim is his analogy that Venus is similar in structure to Earth. In paragraph 5, the author states that a possible way to approach the planet seems possible, because NASA had an idea to create "a blimp-like vehicle to hover over Venus." The author in paragraph 6 states that the blimp would only allow us to recieve "limited insight" on the planet, and we would not be able to take samples or take pictures due to the dense atmosphere. The author does not provide any possible way to collect samples and overcome this issue, besides stating how "many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus." This statment provides no actual evidence as to any progress researchers have made, or if anything useful will come from the knowledge of the surafce Venus.

In paragraph 7, the author mentions a technology made of "silicon carbide" that has been tested by NASA, and survived a simulation of the conditions of Venus for three weeks. The author does not elaborate on the uses for these strong electronics, and leaves the reader guessing at the purpose of this technology. The author also mentions the use of mechanical computers used in the 1940s during World War II. The author speaks of how these computers make calculations by using gears and levers, but does not elaborate on anything else besides their increased resistance to "pressure, heat, and other forces." Once again the author provides no clear reason to the purpose behind the inventions, besides the possible survival of the technology on Venus.

Finally, the author presents his own opinion in paragraph 8. The author states, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planent itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. 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." Paragraph 8, as the author has wrote, is entirely opinionated and dangerously optimistic. His reasoning behind the value of "meeting the challenge of Venus" is the equivalent to practice for humanity, because "human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally indimidating endeavors." The authors opinion of the research on Venus, as shown by this statment, seems to be entirely based on the idea that we should practice for future endeavors despite the dangers which is not only naiive, but dangerous.

To summarize all of this information, the author shows no clear reason as to why we should risk the resources and manpower to attempt an expedition on Venus. The author provides no purpose for the tools stated besides their increased survivability rate, and the author's opinion is forced onto the reader by stating in paragraph 8 that we should ignore the dangers and doubts of exploration to meet the limits of innovation. The author poorly supports his claim of "a worthy pursuit despite the dangers" and provides no facts or evidence for the benefits of humanity attempting the challenge of Venus.

Score: 6