The author states that going to Venus would be worth it despite the risks, but does not back up this claim very well. They mostly talk about the dangers of going to Venus instead of focusing on the importance of exploring there. They also say things like "Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere," and "the atmospheric pressure is over 90 times greater than what we experince on our own planet," basically emphasizing that Venus would be almost impossible to explore because of the extreme harsh conditions on the planet.

First off, in paragraph 3 the author writes "Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere. On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." This is the author suming up how impossible it would be to travel there with the technology scientists have today. They even state "such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans." By saying this they are even supporting the fact that scientists can't get there with the technology they have now.

Secondly, the only support the author has for even traveling to Venus in the first place, is that it is closely related to the planet Earth having features like valleys and mountains. In paragraph 4 he writes "Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on Earth. The planet has a surface of rocky sediment and includes familiar features such as valleys, mountains, and craters." So basically the only reason we should spend the billions of dollars it would take to travel there, is because it is somewhat similar to our planet. The only other support the author has for traveling there is the point that it is the closest planet for planetary visit. Although this might be true, this doesn't rule out the fact how inhospitable and dangerous the planet is.

Furthermore, the rest of the article including paragraphs 5 and 7, the author talks about ways we can get there with the technology we have now. They state that "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray." So the scientists wouldn't actually land on Venus and explore, they would just stay 30 miles or so above the surface and look down onto it. But then in paragraph 6 they completley contradict themselves by writing "peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on the ground conditions, because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmospher, rendering standard froms of photography and videography ineffective." By saying this, they suggest that if the scientists were able to hover above Venus and look down, they would have to have some special camera in order to see anything through Venus's thick atmosphere.

Finally, the author doesn't have very much support for his claim: exploring Venus is worth it despite the dangers. They mostly talk about all the dangers of the planet and why scientists can't get there, saying things like "Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venus's atmosphere," and "the atmospheric pressure is over 90 times greater than what we experince on our own planet." Aside from that, they have a minimal amount of evidence convincing readers to think going to Venus is a good exploration plan, and more evidence showing readers that going to Venus is not that great of an idea.