Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: These are all questions that need to be considered when brainstoming the idea of visitng another planet. The author of this article is avoiding all of these mainstream problems by simply saying it's worth the risks, when it actaully is not. In paragraph 3, the author explains all of the dangers of Venus and how they can affect humans. He explains, " On the planet's surface, the temperature averages over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." Considering that this is true, we can definitrly assume that condition on Venus are severly dangerous, and a lot of people may get hurt trying to explore it. The aurthor also states, " These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oeans and would liquefy many metals. What the author is stating here is that not even our strongest materials and creations can withstand the conditions on Venus. This means that in order to explore Venus we have to design all new machinery, which would cost a lot of money, not to mention the human costs as we would need humans to test things out. He also makes it notable that venus has the hottest surface of any planet, despite not being the closest to the sun. All of these facts are serious concerns when regarding human safety as well as propr functioning of machines. Even if exploring Venus was a possibilty, would it be even be worth it after all of he human costs and money costs or paid. What we are discussing here is putting human lives at risk, and spending a ton of money on a project that is no where near being ready ready to present. These reasons as well as the provided facts assure me on my claim that the author did a terrible job of supporting this idea of exploration.

Score: 2