For centuries, man has been fascinated by the stars in the sky. From the earliest civilizations, people looked to the skies for answers. They worshipped the flaming sun and glowing moon. Later, this worship subsided, and looking to the skies took on a more scientific pursuit. Now, man has come to a time where they can visit the stars and planets. The author does not make Venus sound like a worthy pursuit, because the author is basing the article on the assmption that people should visit Venus.

The author gives three reasons for visiting Venus, and that is Venus is sometimes "our nearest option for planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel". Exploring Venus would help us learn more about the planet (paragraph 8) and encourage us to explore other intimidating areas (also paragraph 8). However, the last two reasons are tagged on at the very end, with little elaboration or mention in the essay. Furthermore the second reasoning is vague reasoning. The author should have used specific reasons instead of the umbrella phrase, such as learning why Venus has changed so much since their theoretical ocean covered past. Some of these can be inferred, but it's better to assume the reader knows nothing than expect them to know everything.

The other problem with this argument is the assumption that people would make a planetary visit. Save for the feel of adventure (and that would likely not make a profit based on the billions poured into these endeavors), the other reason a person would visit another planet is if they made their own planet inhospitable. It would be preferable if the government used some of the money given to NASA on projects relating to the Earth. For example, they could spend money on more efficient, sanitary, moral, and less pollutive techniques concerning meat production. They could spend some of the money on making cheap, biodegradable containers and utensils. They could use the money to subsidize fruit costs (they already do so for meat).

It would be nice if the government invested more money in figuring out how to get rid of the ring of trash around our atmosphere (from various space missions) before launching anything else.

The author does not make Venus sound like a worthy pursuit, because the author is basing the article on the single assumption that people should visit Venus. Though it is understandable that many would find fascination with expoloring beyond he outer realms of what is known, I don't think so much money should be poured into these endeavors. Much of Earth's polluting can be remedied, if the government put more money and effort into this.