The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy dispute despite the dangers very efficiently and clearly. They clearly explain the argument in the second paragraph. They also properly list all the advantages to exploring Venus and then weighed it out with the challenges and risks that would stand in the way. They finally finish by stating their claim once more in their concluding paragraph.

To start their article, they begin in paragraph 2 by stating some facts about the planet and a bit of history to go into it, which helps us understand Earth's history with Venus itself. In Paragraph 2, it states, "Because Venus is sometimes right around the corner - in space terms - humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours... ...not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades. " This explains that we have tried to land spacecrafts onto Venus to study the planet before, and have failed, therefore causing us to give up until now, which is where our argument comes into play.

The argument for this article is simply "Should we try to study Venus again?" and the author believes we should, after they weighed out some of the challenges that were in our way then and are in our way now. Paragraph 3 states "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater that what we experience on our own planet." These facts are about the surface of the planet, and as the author also states in paragraph 3, "these conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and liquefy any metals."

The author then asks at the beginning of paragraph 4, "if our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" Then proceeds to explain, "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." This explanation tells us that Venus could have been exactly like Earth, and may even still be in certain ways. Their explanation continues with, "The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters. Furthermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel." Using this information, we could theoretically use Venus as a second Earth, or maybe a pitstop on the way to other planets, or as a way to research for other lifeforms, which is worth the risks that come with it, and that's what the author is trying to say when asking, "The Value of returning to Venus seems indisputable, but what are the options for making such a mission both safe and scientifically productive?"

The author explains that, "The... ...Administration (NASA) has one particularly compelling idea for sending humans to study Venus. NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray." The author continues to go on and explain that NASA has a plan to make a vehicle that would hover over Venus and observe from above, where the conditions would be less severe. they continue, "At thirty-plus miles above the surface, temperatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth. Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." This means that their solution would be managable, but not perfect.

For their final paragraph, they restate their claim, saying "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." This proves that they believe it will lead us further if we listen to our curiosity versus when we don't follow through due to risks. They also state "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation" which backs up their claim.