Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
In 1976 something weird was discovered on Mars. Viking 1 spacecraft snapped a picture of something that almost looks like a face on Mars. It could be the sign we need to find out if there is life on Mars. A lot of people are saying it is a face, while others do think it is just a natural landform. There have also been pictures captured from 1998 and 2001. This face has became a pop icon, it has appeared in Hollywood films, magazines, books, and even radio talk shows! Although there has been quite a few reasons to think it is a face I personally think it's just a natural landform. Now yes, I do have many reasons for my thinking. In these next couple paragraphs I will state my reasons.

One of my firsts reasons for thiking it is a natural landform is that there are many landforms naturally made just like that around Earth. So if they are natural landforms on Earth they would probably be natural landforms on the planet Mars. In the article Garvin says, " it reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho. That is a lava dome that takes form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars.

My second reason would be that it sorda resembles a face but not really. Theres a very high chance that could just be a mountain and the shadows resemble the eyes, nose, and mouth. As you can see in the picture from 2001 it almost doesnt even look like a face. It is more like a mountain of some sorts there. If you do look at the 1976 photo from distance it does resemble a face, but as the camera quality improved over time it does not look as much like a face anymore.

Another reason is that it is very very unlikely that bthere is an imprint of a face on the planet of Mars. Even if it was though it would basicaly always look the same and not change looks like it has. Now a natural landform will change looks over time. It will rott or decompose and stuff. Which in my opinion it has decayed somewhat. It definintaly has not stayed the same, because all 3 pictures have a significant difference to them. That could be rom better camera and technology quality. To me though it seems as if the better quality makes it look less like a face.

Now though I have a few more reasons this will be my final reason. This "Face of Mars" is the some of the only proof we have to think that there is life on Mars. So it makes me more and more right. It is just very unlikely or maybe even impossible for that to be a face. It is not unlikely that it is a natural landform though.

I do realize there are many reasons why I am wrong and why it is a face but I think it is a natural landform. So in conclusion It is more likely for this , Face of Mars, to be a natural lanforn than for it to be a face.

Score: 4