Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Throughout the article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus", the author provides quite a bit of evidence towards why human exploration of Venus should take place again. The author suggest that sending a human out to study Venus is risky, but it is worth trying to get more information about Venus itself.

In the beginning of the article, the author focuses on why he thinks that it is worth the risk of sending someone out to Venus despite the risks. The authors reasoning is that it is "Earth's 'twin'". He further goes on to explain how Venus might have been "covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth". The author does an adequate job of explaining that they want humans to explore Venus because it is so similar to Earth that they want to understand why. The author does provide enough evidence to support the idea of Earth and Venus being sister planets.

Towards the middle of the article, the author starts explaining the statistics of Venus and how it is now non-sustainable for living organisms. The author is providing a lot of evidence that would steer people away from wanting to send someone out to Venus to get killed. The author could try to use different evidence rather than stating how "these conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth" and that the heat mixed with the pressure "would liquify many metals". So far we have seen how the author has provided a lot of evidence on reasons that it would not be the least bit safe for any lliving organism to go and study up close to Venus.

Later on in the article, the author starts venturing over to the ways it would possibly be safe for someone to go visit Venus. The author suggests a "blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above" Venus' surface. He goes on to tell the statistics of how "the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth". These are not the safest conditions but the author makes sure to provide the fact that they are "survivable for humans". The author has a great idea with a lot of evidence to back him up but there is not enough evidence. He does not state how they are planning on getting material off the surface of Venus while also keeping the humans safe and under sustainable living conditions.

The author provides a paragraph on how they plan to bring electronics close to Venus without having the metal liquify. In the parahraph, the author states that they would use something called mechanical computers. Mechanical computers are something that was "first envisioned in the 1800s and played an important role in the 1940s during World War II". These are made up of silison carbide and would last 3 weeks in the conditions of Venus without getting destroyed. This would allow communication between Earth and the persons that are possibly in the blimp-like vehicle hovering above Venus in order to get orders and directions from The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

In the end, the author includes adequate evidence as to how they plan on getting in sight of Venus, why they want to study it, how they would communicate from Venus to Earth, and the difference of pressure and temperature. The author could go on and provide more support for how the humans would be living out in space and how they would survive within those living requirements that are hardly met.

Score: 5