Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
"The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is a paper that sets out to support that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. After analyzing the paper, I am prepared to make the claim that the author fails to do so. He/she presents a vast array of information on the dangers of exploring Venus, as well as the challenges of doing so, but forgets almost entirely to argue that studying Venus is still is worthy pursuit. The majority of the essay focuses on setbacks, not rewards.

The author begins by explaining how spacecraft cannot survive on Venus long, and that previous missions have been short for that very reason. The pessimistic tone is continued in Paragraph 3, where the author describes the formidable heat, pressure, geology, and weather of Venus, and how such intense conditions would complicate research efforts. It states, "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of hihgly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." In paragraphs 5 and 7, possible ways to combat these road blocks are discussed. Left out of the conversation is the "why?" The author describes NASA's efforts to bipass Venus's problems (like designing a hovering device or considering the use of mechanical computers) but doesn't fill readers in on why such pursuits would even be worth the effort. The question, "We can, but why should we?" is not answered.

To say that the author was not successful in vouching for rearch of the planet Venus is not to say that attempts were not made. Paragraphs 4 and 8 make a few attempts at telling readers why researching is still a good idea. The author informs readers that Venus is of-interest to scientists because it is the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Mentioned also is that Venus is sometimes the closest option for planetary visitation, making its exploration a more economical choice than other planets. Paragraph 8, the conclusion, says, "Striving to meet he challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." Here the author is saying that Venus should be studied because we can gather information, and humans are curious. This is not science or fact-based, and is not strong because it is common knowledge, not argumentative material. If addressing why researching Venus is a worthy pursuit is supposedly one of the focal points of the 8-paragraph paper, evidence supporting it should be found in more than two places.

In conclusion, "The Challlenge of Supporting Venus" did not do a good job of supporting the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. In fact 6 out of the 8 paragraphs talk mostly about what a struggle exploration would be, and the work it would require. It focused more on giving the reader facts and figures about why studying Venus would be difficult, nearly impossible, even, but it did not thoroughly explain why such difficulties should be worked through, or why researching Venus is a fruitful and worthwhile endeavor.

Score: 5