Rate the following argument fragment on its writing, argument, and language skills:
Evidence: In the article, the author continously offers alternatives for exploration. He does this is paragraphs' 5,6, and 7 where he gives examples of organizations that are working towards this exploration. However in all of the paragraphs, the author seems to only be giving "what if" scenarios or in some cases just simple ideas that have been thought about and are possibly being examined. He fails to provide any real data or statistics for these things, except when he mentions the simplified electronics in paragraph 7. Even then, those devices are only able to survive for 3 weeks, so it would still take many years to just improve those devices. Also, in paragraph 6 the author states, "Many researchers are working on innovations that would allow our machines to last long enough to contribute meaningfully to our knowledge of Venus". This statement is very broad, and it does not key in on any form of information that should lead us to believe that to be true. These details from the passage prove my point on the amount of years it would take, as well as the fact that nobody has any idea how long. The question to be asked here is, "Is it worth the wait?". For these reaons I stand behind my claim that the author supported the idea of exploring venus very poorly.

Score: 2