Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Many people are thinking that the "face" on Mars is an actual face, or they say it was created by aliens. It was proven very well that it is not an actual face. One it is an rock, two the angle the camera was at cought the shadow of it so it seemed as if it was a face, and three the only reason it was told to be a face was for marketing.

My first reason was because it is a rock on mars. It states in paragraph three that it is a huge rock in formation of a human head. therefore that is one reason it is showing everyone that it is just a rock. The rock over the years has wathered down and it has more crevisises and it is losing the foerm of a face. If there was an actual face barryed under there it would never really lose its true form.

My second reason is that the angle of the camera was so that you can see the shadow and if they just wouldve gotten a better angle you woyld be able to see that there was nothing really there. If you were too also look at othere surroundings you would be able to see that there are many other masas on Mars. It also states that it may have been the pixles in the cameras. If we had the technology we have now when they first found it you would most likely have a better picture of it and be able to see what it actually looked like.

My final reason for it not being a face is that the only reason they continued on the theory of it being a face because they wanted good marketing. So itr seemed as if they kept the theory continued because they wanted to have marketing for NASA. Obviously it worked, because the story stated that they started to have hollywood film it appeared in books, magazines, and even raido talks.

Thoes are my reasonings that the "face" on Mars is actually just a rock. It was proven to be just another one of the many rocks on mars, the angle of the camera could've been off, the kept the theory going just for marketing.

Score: 4