Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
About 25 years ago, NASA saw a "face" like figure on Mars. It was obvious that it was a large rock formation with shadow-like features. On April 5, 1998, Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia for the first time and it caught a picture ten times sharper than the first. It revealed a natural landfom. But, because this was taken a cloudy day people believed it was an alien haze. Therefore on April 8, 2001, they took another picture on a cloudless day in Cydonia.

The spacecraft took a picture on m aximum resolution, which was far batter and clearer than the 1976 Viking photo. If any pyramids, shacks, or lifeforms were there we would have seen it, that's how pixelated the camera was. The photo shows that the "face" is the Martian equivalent to a mesa or butte rock formation. They compared it to the one in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.

Also, hollywood films, magazines, and radio talk shows aren't always reliable. Why would you believe a story based on something, with no actual facts to back it up? The actual pictures and evidence are a more reliable source rather than conspiracy theories, movies, or magazine articles. People have too much trust i the media that they don't rely on facts from NASA or other imporatnt officials anymore. After the clearer pictures were released people continued to believe there was aliens, or that NASA was hiding something. The pictures, facts, and even the example of the Idaho mesa give more proven details on this particular subject of the "face"

In conclusion, I believe the "face" on Mars is simply a mesa or rock formation, because rock formations aren't uncommon on this planet and they have more evidence to prove it such as pictures, examples of mesas, and basic information. Those who believe the conspiracy theories, or in aliens do not have enough information to back up their story. Therefore, the "face" is only a mesa.

Score: 3