In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" the author does a good job to prove that Venus is a worhty pursuit despite the dangers that are presented, they do this by giving information based on actual conditions, studies and actual experiences. The author used a combination of all three of these to prove their claim that Venus is worth the danger.

The conditions in Venus are a great mix of specific material. The author thoroughly explains each part of the atmosphere in Venus. The text says that " These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an enviroment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquify metals." They are proving that the conditions on Venus would exceed anything that our bodies could handle.

Despite saying this, they make a point when they begin into the discussion of the education it could bring us. In the text it is shown that "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet it our solar system." The author supports his argument very well when they say this. They used a status stand point which gives the author more credibility. He then forms a question within the text, by doing this it brought them the opportunity to show the research they had conducted for this writing piece.

The author brought in the research on the true experiments that were thought up through NASA. He builds up NASA's ideas by explaining to the deepest points, but never hits an oppostion until the next paragraph. When they do this it creates an amazing idea that could have the possibility to work imaged into the readers heads.

They eventually hit the oppostition and shows the down fall with NASA's great plan. They state in the text that " More importatnly, researchers cannot take samples of rock, gas, or anything else, from a distance. Therefore, scientists seeking to conduct a thorough mission to understand Venus would need to get up close and persoanl despite the risks." When the author decides to say this they prove the irony of it all. If you can't be up close and personal with the planet then you can't learn the reasons you truly cannot be. From the opposing standpoint it was supported very well once they did that.

They then go back on track to support their claim. They do this by explaining the experiments done in the past. They state a comparison to the readers when they say, " Just imagine exposing a cell phone tablet to acid or heat capable of melting tin," This comment that was made impacts the writing positvely. When they do this it gives the readers something to think about or imagine. It brings the issue to them and gives them a chance to relate somehow.

The conclusion that he provides gives a clear closing. He states his claim again and uses his evidence to bring the topic to a point. The closing gives you something to think about, it leaves you wondering about the topic and forming your own opinions. In the conclusion it states, " Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet te very edges of imagination and innovation." The right thing is to not starve us from the education that could be provided just because of a dangerous boundary. All of the evidence that they have stated and proven through the whole essay just ends with them eventually just stating that it is the right thing to do.

The author does a good job of proving this through the whole essay.