Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The "Face on Mars" is a very conterversal subject that has people in awe about the very thought of exteresterial life, but is it really a sign? Many people, and even scientists, think so, but it still isn't convicing enough to many. There are many theories it could be. It could just be natural landforms like a butte or mesa or maybe is just a marking of a impact of somekind that formed the shape of a face coincedently. Like I said before, the story of the "Face on Mars" is very mystery story but I think it is all a joke.

Scientist have gathered many pictures of the "Face on Mars" and have studied them very throughly. One conclusion they came to was that it was a natural landform. The landform they thought it most looked like was like a mesa or butte because of the height of the face is most like a isloated mesa, as said by Jim Garvin. There are many buttes and mesas out around the American West as well, the face being a mesa or butte isn't uncommon. That is one theory scientists think the "Face on Mars" is.

They other theory, that I pose is that it may just be a coincedense that a faced formed because maybe something from outer space like a meteor or asteroid hit the planet at that location. It is possible because the moon and other planet have craters, so why can't Mars. This is the other theory that I think the "Face on Mars" was formed.

In conclusion, the "Face on Mars" is a very conterversal subject. Scientist think it is just landform like a mesa or butte. I think it is a result of a impact of somekind resulting in a "face" on mars. That is why I think aliens didn't create the "Face on Mars".

Score: 3