Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author does a poor job of explaining why Venus should be explored, despite risks. First, they introduce Venus' poor, inhabitable conditions. Then, they go on to suggest an idea that isn't anything but a dream. Finally, they admit that the previous "solution" won't even work.

The introduction to Venus in paragraph three, is anything but inviting. The author tells the reader that most of Venus's atmospher is 97% CO2 or carbon dioxide. That is a gas that humans exhale and it's extremely deadly when there is too much. For example, carbon dioxide poisoning. That kills people. It doesn't get better. The author then goes on to explain that the atmospheric pressure is even survivable. The author writes,

"... And the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet."

This line basically tells the reader that if an actual human were to even land there, they would most likely die immediately. If not for the suffocation that would happen because of the excessive amount of carbon dioxide. The author even says, in paragraph two, a robot couldn't survive Venus for, "more than a few hours." How well would a human do? This tells the readers of all the dangers, not even offering a benefit, other than to "meet the challenge."

Not only does the the author state all the reasons why we shouldn't go to Venus, the solution they have found isn't really a good one. In paragraph five, the author writes, "Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusian landscape... Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." The author starts with the word "imagine," telling the reader that this idea most likely isn'y even an option. The word imagine has the connotation of something you would want to happen, not neccesarily something that will. They then go on to say that the conditions weren't easy, but at least people could survive.

That sounds great, right? Wrong.

This so-called "solution" isn't even a solution.

In paragraph six, the author admits that looking at the planet safely hovering wasn't going to be enough. "More importantly, researchers cannot take samples," The auhtor explains. "Of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance."

This line proves that the the vehicle suggested previously is not even going to work. It will put people in "survivable" conditions for basically nothing.

So, the author does a very poor job of supportung the idea that Venus is worthy of studying, despite the dangers. They list reason after reason, of why that is a bad idea and the one solution they find, they admit won't work.

Score: 5