The author does not effectively support his suggestion that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. He believes that Venus has more value than just a rocky surface that is completely inhabitable by humans right now. Although the author provides multiple details that relate to his suggestion, he provides even more details that contradict his idea.

One way the author contradicts his suggestion is by telling us about the unmanned spacecraft that have been sent to Venus. He tells us how there have been multiple spacecraft sent to Venus but none have survived for a long period of time. For example, in the text the author states, " No spacecraft has survived the landing for more than a few hours. Maybe this issue explains why not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decades." This excerpt from the author's article completely contradicts his idea. He says that Venus is a worthy pursuit, but how is he supposed to convince readers this when at the same time he is saying that no spacecraft has been sent to Venus for more than thirty years.

The author also contradicts his idea of the value of exploring Venus by describing the planet. In paragraph three the author says that Venus has ninety-seven percent caron dioxide and has clouds that contain highly corrosive sulfuric acid. He also states that Venus has the hottest surface temperature in our solar system and would liquefy many metals. These details do not help his idea at all. They just show how much more inhabitable and worthless Venus would be to explore. It would be a waste of time and money to study a planet that humans wouldn't be able to even live on.

One final way the author does not effectively support his claim is by giving us details about the challenges humans would face even if we were able to make it to Venus. He says that photography and videography would be ineffective and that researchers wouldn't be able to take samples of rock, gas, or anything else while hovering safely above the planet. So even if humans were able to make it to Venus safely, it would be extremely difficult to research Venus. It wouldn't be worth it to spend time and money on an expedition to Venus that wouldn't even allow us to gain knowledge.

The author does give a good point to why Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. He says that Venus was once like Earth long ago and that it was probably covered in oceans and supported various forms of life. He describes the value of returning to Venus as "indisputable." However, he does not give enough evidence to support this claim. He only gives one piece of evidence on why Venus is a worthy pursuit and that is that Venus is closely related to Earth. But throughout the whole article, it seems he is constantly contradicting his statement. The author could have more effectively supported his claim that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents by providing details that will outweigh his examples of the dangers and challenges that Venus presents.