Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
I don't beleive that the author supported his idea of studying venus well enough because the only basis of he gives is that it has similar landforms to us, he gives no solid fact on a material as of now whose trip would be cost effect and effective enough overall to send there, and his only filler support in the article is pathological, him trying to rouse curiousity rather than explaining why it makes sens to work towards it.

The main reason of study he pushed in the article with credit towards it is the fact that Venus has similar landforms to us. He goes as far as to propose the fact that Venus at one time held life like earth does. When the current idea of how our landforms were formed is based around the idea that Glaciers and giant masses of ice moved across our plant at a time, whether he does it directly or indirectly, that it what he's applying to Venus. When the orbit of our planets around the star as of now almost overlap each other, that planet would have only thawed out a number centuries ago, and for the differences in the planets to be as exponentially different as these two have doesn't support the idea that we started off similar but one day their planet just changed out of the blue.

The only fact he gives us about material with the physical ability to survive on that planet somewhat argue his claim due to the affect that they would not be able to positively effect whatever studies we currently have on the planet. The time frame of three weeks able to survive on the surface doesn't provide enough time for the object to be picked up before it's useless, and that small bit of information wouldn't be worth the budget it would require when no samples can be collected from it and only observational material can be collected. The Idea of mechanical computers is possible but not profitable in any way would nothing with gears can be provided a signal to take commands. Anything that can't be remotly controlled can only be given very few functions and can not be monitored, only picked up at a later date to process information and multiple trips to a planet without any insight to the project as it happens is very unlikely to be funded.

You can also tell the author of this article either ran out of material at a point or the majority of his reasoning on this subject relies on passion and not logical thinking. Instead of including more detail to persuade you, he take a pathological approch and harps on things to like curiosity to get a pathological reaction. The very beginning of the passage itself starts by calling Venus the "Evening Star." A scientific article that doesn't used scientific facts and statistics to win you over, but tries to pass it off as a duty for us to want to, doesn't lead me to believe supporting this idea to be the most effective use of our time.

In summary, I don't believe this article supports the idea that studying Venus is worth it properly. It might be one of the best ideas in scientific history, but this article doesn't prove it or support it well enough if so. The author's main claim is for why we should is split between "because we're curious" and "Their landforms are similar," and he doesn't provide evidence that we, as of yet, have the technology to effectivly do so.

Score: 3