Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Would exploring a higly dangerous planet from above storms be worth it? What would humanity gain from exploring a planet like Venus. The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" did not do a good suporting his ideas, for the author gives information usless to their idea and they give contradictory evidence.

The writer contradicts his idea in by giving contradicting information. In paragraph 6 the author stats "However, Peering art Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions..." By stating this the author contradicts his point of there being much to learn on Venus, as scientists could not find much about the serface of Venus. Also this imformation shows how implausable discoveries would be. Providing this information; the author hurt their previous points.

The author also provides usless indepth information on previous expeditions. The author states in paragraph 2 "Each previous misson was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." This imformation is usless in proving that Venus is a worthy pursuit, as it make the mission seem imposible. Providing evidence to make the mission seem implausable does not convince readers.

The author of "The Challenges of Exploring Venus" did not do a good job supporting his ideas, the author gives information usless to their idea and they give contradictory evidence. Again what would humanity gain from exploring Venus. Also would one risk exploring a highly dangerous planet for a chance at information.

Score: 3