The author does not support their idea of Venus being a planet worth exploring despite the risk and dangers very well. There are examples or facts that the author provides to the reader that are sometimes insignifigant to the point. The author also provides information that is very detrimental to their claim and only makes their aruement weaker. The reason why the information is detrimental is because the author fails to give any counter arguement that would be convincing enough to to at least have the reader understand their side.

To start, in the third paragraph the author list many reasons why Venus is difficult to explore and ather information on. Later in the fourth paragraph the author talks about how enthusiastic scientist are to explore the planet and how it may have been like Earth at some point. If the author were to reorganize the fourth paragraph giving the teorey that Venus was once like Earth and then going on to give the inputs of scientist it would have made more sense going into the fifth paragraph. In paragraph five the author writes about how NASA has ideas on how scientist can observe Venus without entering its toxic and dangerous enviornment. The author also explains the conditions the scientist would be under if they were to make this idea a reality and said conditions would make any who oppose this idea less open to the thought than they already are, which is not the point of the article. In paragraph six the author talks about how while scientist could observe Venus if they were to go through with the plan NASA has it would ultimatly be for nothing as scientist would have no way to gather information worth sending back.

The author does have points that support the claim but said points were either useless to the overall idea or were organized in a poor manner. The author also provides arguements that counter their claim and says nothing to counter those arguements back. The author also talks about human exploratiom in the article but it essientially amounts to nothing. The reason why is because the author later goes on to talk about machines on the planet itself making most of the information provided before hand obselete. If the author left most of the article out the claim may have actually been supported well although the information provided woul have been lackluster.