Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The objective of the article the author wrote was to explain why Venus is a worthy pursuit even though there are dangers to it. The article itself mostly described the dangers of exploring Venus but did not give us many reasons of why we should do it. The author did not support the idea that studying Venus is worth the pursuit despite the dangers it presents that well.

Even though the author said that studying Venus can be an opportunity to challenge our limits and can "lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors", they gave us more negative reasons than positive reasons about Venus and why it would be a good idea to explore it more. The first big negative statement about Venus and attempting to explore it was when the author said "no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours". The author did not give the reader any possible solution or even an idea on how we might be able to fix that.

Another negative statement about Venus and why it is a difficult planet to explore is when they mentioned "temperatures average over 800 degrees Farenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet". These factors are just about impossible to survive in for even more than a few minutes probably. The author did not mention any possible solution of what scientists might be able to think up. He didn't even state a positive reason why Venus is still a worthy pursuit.

A final negative statement about exploring Venus is when he said that "our jet airplanes could travel at a higher altitude to fly over storms" and that "temperatures would still be hot at thirty-plus miles above the surface", but then gave the readers more problems with flying high over the surface of Venus in the next paragraph. The author told us that "far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere". Because of this, any pictures or videography would be useless. The author told the readers that "researchers are are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus", but he did not give us any example to prove to us that researchers were actually doing that.

This article attempted to argue that even though Venus was a worthy pursuit even though there were many challenges to it, but it did not argue why very well. It could think of more negative features of Venus and gave us more reasons of why pursuing that planet would be risky than stating why it was a good idea. The author did a poor job trying to convince its readers that exploring Venus is worth the risk and challenges.

Score: 4