Venus has been proven to be a dangerous planet, yet scientist continue the attempt of research because it is believed to be a worthy cause, which is what the author believes in as well. Scientists have been trying to research and evaluate Venus for many years, however there are still many obstacles to be overcome. The author supports the idea that Venus is a worthy a pursuit despite the dangers it poses in a mediocre way. They could have gone about it in way which the idea was supported throughout the article, but instead the idea is not posed until the middle.

According to Paragraph 3 "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere." These conditions are extremely dangerous for humans. The passage even states "These conditions are 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 would liquefy many metals." At first the author does poorly to support the idea that Venus is worthy pursuing because only the dangers, such as those above, are listed and supported with details.

As the article nears the end some solutions to the dangers are posed, enabling the author to support the idea that Venus is worth the pursuit. A possible solution to the "hostile conditions" would allow scientist to get close enough to observe Venus, however it would cause them to be unable to get any rock samples. Humans would have to stay at least 30 miles above the surface. The temperature would still be high at whopping 170 degrees Fahrenheit, however the air pressure would be close to that of Earth's and even survivable for humans. The author also states in Paragraph 5 that "Solar power would be plentiful, and radiation would not exceed Earth levels." This could also allow for the possibility of life on Venus. "Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans."

The author should have supported the idea that Venus is worth pursuing throughout the article, rather than beginning to support it in the middle. The author wrote plenty of negative facts about Venus in the first few paragraphs, causing the reader to wonder about the safety of "Earth's 'twin'". In order make the main idea clear the author should have listed a few negative things, and then contradicted them with facts and supporting details. This would have made the article stronger, immaculately organized, and more understandable as well.