Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" states in the last paragraph, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors," which means the author sides with the idea of studying Venus, even with the risks it offers.

In paragraph 5, the author gives light on NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus. NASA's idea is to allow scientists to float above the fray, like a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above Venus's landscape. A vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions and that the temperatures would still be warm at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. So, not easy conditions, but still survivable for humans.

The author states in the next paragraph that in order to a conduct a thorough mission to get more information on Venus, scientists would need to get up close and personal, despite the risks.

The author ends the article with "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to mee the very edges of imagination and innovation," which says that just because there are many dangers that come with getting to know more about Venus, doesn't mean we should avoid Venus on purpose. We should get to know more about Venus despite the dangers for our own imagination and innovation.

Studying Venus is a good start to unravel the secrets of not only our galaxy, but of the universe also, but until we have even more advanced technology and equipment, it wouldn't be the best idea to start doing missions on Venus as of now; However, the author of this article believes that we should study Venus despite the dangers that we could face to further expand what we know. The author is being more considerate of science than of safety.

Score: 3