The claim that "Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents" is not well supported by the passage. Throughout the passage the author explains why Venus is exceptionally hard to explore, why it hasn't explored it in 3 years, and even the intrigue that it causes. It doesn't explain the benefits of exploring Venus and it doesn't explain the benefits of our curiosities. The passage explains more of the dangers of exploring Venus than why it is worthy to be pursued by any reason other than curiousity.

The first paragraph introduces the reader to the planet Venus describing it as an "Evening Star" that is easy to view from afar, but challenging to view up close. The author starts with these statements, leading the reader to the question "Why is it challenging?". Through the second and third paragraph it explains why it was explored and why those missions failed. This gives the reader knowledge on what Venus is and a picture of what Venus looks like, while also explaining some of the many reasons that Venus can't be explored.

In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs we see a shift in view point, where instead of focusing on the expected "Why should or shouldn't Venus be explored?" the author then moves to the topic of "Why are scientists wanting to explore Venus?". The answer? The author explains that the reason behind all of the searching for ways to explore Venus is merely curiousity. The author also explians the approaches to explore Venus, that NASA is taking, because scientists are curious. In the paragraphs it doesn't suggest that exploring Venus is worthy, as it only explains why exploring Venus has failed, how any missions now would fail, and what NASA is doing to approach their curiousity.

In the conclusion paragraph, the author explains that the challenge that Venus presents is what fuels the curiousity of many scientists. It also states that "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts..." proving that the author was not focused on proving that it is a worthy cause but more of saying, we should not be grounded because it's dangerous.

The author's suggestion is not well supported by the claim, as it has been shown that the author only focused their attention on how dangerous and scary Venus is and not on how exploration of Venus could be beneficial to understanding and history. The author's claim would have been better supported had they focused on the benefits of exploration and why the attempts to explore Venus are important, other than the filling the questions that are asked about the hardly known planet.