A good argument starts with research. The author of the article, "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" has done his research. Does this mean that his argument is perfect? No. With all this said, I have come to the conclusion that the author has the sufficient evidence to support the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit, despite the dangers.

First, I would like to address his argumentative claim: studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. The author is simply saying we should explore Venus. The author is not implying every human being should live on Venus right now. Exploring Venus could be dangerous, but the good outweighs the bad when taking into consideration the advances we could make.

The article says, "NASA is working on other approaches to studying Venus." The author uses this throughout the article to illustrate that NASA wants to explore Venus. NASA/scientists would not discuss even visiting the surface if it was not a possibility. The author wants to show the audience that it is a worthy and possible pursuit. The author knows the dangers and even expresses them throughout the article. He/she is not trying to hide the fact that their are dangers involved in exploring Venus. The main argumentative point made by the author is the fact that Venus is the closest planet to being exactly like Earth. The article says, "Venus is the closest planet to Earth in terms of density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too." Venus is the closest we can get to the planet we are living on now. The author describes the advances we could get from astronaunts touching down on Venus and exploring. Venus could have been just like Earth, but one will never know until humankind touches its surface. The conditions are not easy, but we will not be able to find out if humans can live there until we study Venus.

In conclusion, one can see the author's suggestion as absurd or one could see possiblility/advancements for humans. I see possibilities in studying/exploring Venus. The author should not have included as much research against his claim that he did and I can understand the opposing sides claim, but I also believe the author illustrated the room for advances. Although I know the dangers presented in this article, the author was still able to convince me otherwise.