The author did not really have a set tone. He argued for both sides a lot of the time and there was no one specific side that i could see that he sided with. The author gave specific details for both arguments and made very good points for both sides. He made points such as its very similar to Earth and It might have no contained signs of life. He also said things like ¨Its too hot and the atmosphere is too much for a human being to handle.

In paragraph 4 the author writes, ¨It may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system.¨ They also say ¨The planet has a serfave of rocky sediment and includes familar featured such as valleys mouthains and creators.¨ The authers tone in this suggest that he thinks the idea that we could travel to venus would benefit us greatly and it might actually be like Earth.

In paragraph 3 that author states that ¨A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide balnets Venus.¨ He also says that ¨Its far more extreame that anything humans will encounter on Earth. This means that going to venus might be able to kill and it might not be sutable for humans to live on. Its so hot on Venus that it would liquify most medals so even if we got there we couldnet expand and build anything.

The author makes valid arguments for both sides but i had a very had time deciding what side he was arguing. There was just as much posative as there was negative. He had no one clear side throughout the whole article he was arguing why we should and why we shouldent go to Venus.