Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
If I were a scientist at NASA and I was disucussing the Face with someone who doesn't think the Face was just landformation I would say, it is because of what other scientist in NASA believe it was a landformation that looked like a real human face.

The Face was just something formed by the planet because the artical says, "huge rock formation... which resemles a human head... formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose, and mouth." Which means that is was just a rock that was formed a different way to look like it was a face. Although few scientists believed the Face was an alien artifact, but there were more scientist to prove them wrong. Another piece of evidence was when they were taking pictures Garvin said, "As a rule of thumb, you can discern things in a digital image 3 times bigger than the pixel size," he added. "So, if there were objects in this picture like airplanes on the ground or Egyptian-style pyramids or even small shacks, you could see what they were!" What the picture actually shows is the Martin equivalent of the butte or mesa-landforms common around the American West. This evidence goes with my argument because if it was some type of alien siglnal the camera would of picked it up and they would of seen what it really was, but they didn't all they saw was a landform like the ones around American West.

In conclution it was not an alien signal, or artifact, it was just a piece of land formed differently. Now you all know it wasn't from aliens. All it was, was an illusion that looked like a real human face with a nose, eyes, and more. Don't assume everything on other planets are always from aliens because for now we don't have proof aliens exist.

Score: 3