Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The "Face of Mars" is clearly a natural landmark that, in a low resolution camera, looked like a face. Until there is proof of life on Mars, there is not a single chance that something couldv'e made this. It is actually a very common mesa on Mars and this is why it cannot be man-made.

First of all, the photo taken at first and released to the public was not very good. The difference between the photo from 1976 and 2001 is extremely noticable. The picture from 1998 looks the most like a face, but it is still quite a stretch to say that it is a face. The high-resolution images and 3D altimetry completely disproves it and shows what it really, a mesa.

Now some skeptics might say that NASA might be unreliable and might have changed the photo. There are two things wrong with that arguement. If NASA had discovered new life on Mars, they would most defineitly share it with the public. Everyone would know that there were other lifeforms on other planets, and this would be extremely benificial to NASA. They would get all the funding they need to do more exploration deeper into space. They would get more scientists interested in making technology for space travel. They would get more brave volenteers for space travel. The second thing wrong is the difference between sources of information. All the info people have about the face is either from NASA itself and pop culture like movies or magazines. So if you trust magazines and movies more than a well supplied and well known orginazation like NASA, then you don't have as reliable sources making your own arguement not very believable.

In conclution, skeptics don't have any reliable proof that hasn't been already disproven.

Score: 3