Rate the following essay on its writing, argument, and language skills:
The author does not support the idea enough that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. Compared to their reasons on why studying Venus is a worthy pursuit, they gave a lot more reasons on why it is dangerous. They greatly showed how the conditions on Venus are far more extreme than anything humans are used to. On the other hand, they explained very little on how it would benefit us and showed how it's mostly just out of curiosity.

The author provided many, many dangers that the pursuit of studying Venus presents. The text states, "These conditions [on venus] are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on earth... additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking land on its surface." The author seems to thoroughly describe the dangers of visiting Venus by describing the high temperatures, the high atmospheric pressure, and other things humans are not used to. They also point out how Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system, and how no spacecraft has survived a landing on Venus for more than a few hours. This is all a lot more information provided on the dangers compared to the information provided on the benefits for studing Venus.

The author explained very little on how studying Venus is a worthy pursuit. The text states, "Striving to meet the 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." The author always seems to make a vague statement on how Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers but never provides any evidence. The author says the planet would gain us insight, but doesn't show how. The second part of their statement about human curiosity seems very careless; the author sounds like he/she is just curious to have more insight on Venus. The text also states, "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like earth." This statement could have been the start of a good reason on why Venus is a worthy pursuit. Venus could possibly be inhabited by humans in the future. However, the author does't explain this; they just begin to compare Venus to Earth.

To conclude, the author did not effectively support the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. They provided many of the dangers, showing how humans would not be able to handle the conditions. On the other hand, they did not thoroughly explain why Venus is still a worthy pursuit despite these dangers. They gave very vague statements but provided little to no evidence. They should have built on their reasons to show how the dangers of studying Venus don't matter as much as compared to the benefits of studying Venus.

Score: 4