Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
From the article "Unmasking the Face on Mars", it leaves two questions unanswered. Is it natural or not? Is there other life or just things happening to be that way? My vote goes to natural non-life forms.

There is no acurate way to say that there is life forms but if there were other life forms and the government isn't just hidding things, then we would have found out about it by now. When the picture was taken it could have just been cloudy and maybe the rock formation has been there for awhile. "'As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image three times bigger than the pixel size.'"

This face or figure that we say we see isn't really that at all. For instance a car doesn't have a face but yet you could easily imagine it having one. If we see two slits and a larger one below it, to us, this resembles a face. This figure juts from it's frame because over time things change. The mars dust or sand could just as easily have been blown by wind and formed this "creation".

In this article,"'It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho.'" The plain in Idaho could be natural and so why can't this "face" be natural. There is nothing wrong with nature's beauty giving us questions and allowing us to make accusations.

So therefore, there is no other life forms. There is no "face" on mars. This is all just a mixup and it shows up one way our minds work. One way we can see nature's beauty. Instead of trying to argue, why not trust science?

Score: 3