Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: When talking about something as dangerous as exploring another planet, it is easy to see that our Earth bound technology simply cannot do the job. in paragraph 5 of the article, the author describes an idea that was thought up by "The National Aeronautics and Space Administartion". This idea is to have humans 30 or so miles above Venus for exploration. The author claims how this would be beneficial in keeping humans safe from the Venusian landscape. However, The author does not support this idea well, as he goes on to say how not much exploration can be done from there, and the conditions would still be extremely dangerous but "survivable". Also in paragraph 7, the author explains how NASA is working on other approaches to study Venus. He explains how they are working on some simplified electronics, made of silicon carbide, that have been testedd in a chamber simulating the chaos of Venus's surface. This may sound like a good thing, but it is far from one. This is because the author finsihes by saying that the electronics lasted only three weeks. If a computer can't withstand Venus's conditions longer than three weeks, I am very doubtful that a human can. This proves my point that our technology is far too inadvanced for such a task like exploring another planet. Therefore supporting my claim that the author did a poor job in supporting this idea.

Score: 2