Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The so called "face" on Mars is clearly just a natural landform.

If it was a face, then why would it be the only one we see.

If this was a face, would it have been the only living being on Mars.

If it were a face, it does clearly resemble that of a human, but no human has been to Mars.

You could say maybe humans began civilization on Mars but we had to leave for whatever reason and when we got to Earth we suddenly went into a stone age, and that face was from a human that died on Mars, but that would have to have been millions of years ago and the "face" would no doubt have been buried in the sand.

If you are not yet convinced that this is just and landform that coincidentally looks like a face yet, then here are some more arguments.

In paragraph 7, it talks about how they took a much better quality photo of the "face" and it appeared to be nothing more than a landform.

You could also argue that maybe the sand covered up the facial features, but why wouldn't it have done that a long time ago?

Wouldn't that mean that whatever kind of species it was died recently?

If so why don't we see millions or thousands or hundreds or even tens of this species?

Was it the only one ever to exist on the planet.

If it Mars were sustainable for this creature, then it would clearly be sustainable enough for more creatures to appear just like it.

Also NASA scientists are no doubt more qualified then any average citizen when it comes to topics about other planets, and even they appear to think that it is just a landform.

If it was a face, this would prove that there was life on Mars which could benefit NASA, so they ultimately would have no reason to keep it from us.

This "face" is just a landform but people seem to think that it proves that there was life on Mars.

While there may have been life on Mars, I don't think that this landform proves it.

Score: 3