Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" does suggest that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers, but fails to provide enough support to make that statement believable. The author stresses in parts of the article that Venus is valuable and needs to be explored but then counters that with lenghty paragraphs explaining the hazards that come with this. The ratio that Venus is valuable but exploration is dangerous is not one to one. This makes it harder to believe that Venus is actually worthy of exploration. The author mentions that Venus is valuable, but then counters by explaining the dangers that come with this exploration, and finally includes the steps that are being taken to get there which never sheds light on the importance of exploring Venus.

First and foremost, the author does indeed suggest that Venus is important and that it is worth exploring. However, the times that the reader can actually see this written in the article is very few, specifically three times. The first time this happens is in paragraph four and it says,"Recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration". The next time it is mentioned is a little bit after that and it says, "The value of returning to Venus is indisputable".

The last time is at the end of the article. The quote says,"Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself". All three quotes are supporting the idea that Venus is valuable to exploration, but they are never given any evidnece to back them up making it hard to believe what they adovcate.

Now, besides the fact that there is little to no support for the previous quotes the author goes on to explain the numerous dangers that come with simply trying to explore Venus. The author spends the majority of paragraph three explaing the hazards that Venus presents. The text says," On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet". Later on in paragraph three the text says,"Such and environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to divnig to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liqueft many metals". These two quotes raise red flags in many readers minds, causing them to wonder why scientists are even considering exploring such a deadly planet. The author also failed to inlcude a counter to the dangerous conditions on the planet and didn't explain why it is still valuable.

Finally, the author tries to make the dangerous and possibly deadly pros list seem okay and feasible. The author goes along to explain the steps NASA and othe scientists are taking to possibly make a trip to Venus. According to the text, "One particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray". This quote creates a sense of hope for the exploration argument but does nothing to explain to the reader the value in exploring Venus. The text also states,"NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus. For example, simplified electronics made of silicon have been tested in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface and have lasted for three weeks in such conditions". This quote, yet again, explains how there are possible and theoretical steps and options that can be taken to make exploring Venus safe,

but in the end sheds no light on any benefits, advances, or values that come from being able to explore Venus. The majority of paragraphs five, six, and seven explain more steps and ideas that could be used but, in the end, provide no support for the argument that exploring Venus is worthwhile despite the dangers it presents.

Many people can conclude that space exploration is a positive, beneficial process. However, after reading this article it seems that exploring Venus is not the best idea. The author tires to support the idea that exploring Venus is worthwhile but only mentions it a few times. Then within the middle and end of the article the author stacks multiple counters to his or her argument.The author goes on to explain the hazardous conditons of Venus and steps to get to the planet but never explains the importance of even trying to explore Venus. In the end, the author did not successfully support their argument.

Score: 6