I do not think that the author supported his idea to the fullest. He could have just done better because he never made it clear about his descion. there were just too much negatve about going to venus theres are 4 postive things about why we should go to venus. "solar pwer would be plentiful , and radiation wouldnt exceed earth levels not easy conditions but survivable for humans .

He supported his argument very few places of the passage. The text states "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment includes familiar features such as valleys and mountain. He also supported his argument with "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life . which means that the planet could be inhabitable by humans.

He made his argument worse by putting all of the dangerous stuff intot the text. The author says "Humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous misson was unmanned."

Which means that it has been to difficult to go there for breif periods at a time. " A thich atmosphere of almoost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets venus." Which means that it is very inhabitibal for humans.

If i had to guess on which side the author would have been for : try and explore the plane or Stop trying because it is too dangerous I would have to say that he is on the stop trying it is too dangerous side. I think this because compared to the postive stuff it says to venus it has a lot of bad facts and good reasons on why we shouldnt go there. in my mind i do not think that he got his point out enough to say he wants us to go to Venus .

In my opinion Venus is too dnagerous for us to survive there and live there. I think that exploring there is just a waste of money because " each previous mission has been unmanned and you shouldnt just keep trying. the author believes that there should be money invested into the reseach of venus. I do not agree with him. And i feel as though we as humans should explore some where more inhabitable