There are numerous amounts of risks and rewards that come with the study of Venus, and it is difficult to know whether the good outweighs the bad. The author attemtps to support the study of Venus by including facts and the possiblilty of scientific discoveries. I believe, however, that the author failed to be pursuasive in his support on the subject, due to his lack of supporting evidence and his stating lf the many risks of studying Venus.

The authors most critical mistake in the article was the use of too many facts that caused more concern for risks, and not enough rewards that would come with the study of Venus. He states the conditions of Venus, temperature, atmospheric pressure, its carbon dioxide plagued atmosphere, along with many other negative qualities of the planet. The article even states the failed spaceship landings on the planer. To the reader, stating these facts is credible, but too many of these negative qualities fail to entise the reader into thinking that the study of the planet is a good thing.

The author also fails to persuade the reader when dicussing the positive impacts that this study could entail. Too many of the topics the author writes about are hypotheticals and provide, at times, little factual evidence. These hypotheticals and the small proportion of facts used are also mixed together with risks amd negative outlooks as well. Very little is said to make one think that the study of Venus is vital or logical.

The author used little positive facts about the study of Venus, and talked of too many risks of this pursuit. He did not effectively pursuade me to believe that studying Venus is a worthy aspiration; rather, his facts and evidemce ,ade the exploration seem illogical. In order to support this cause to the bedt of his ability, the author must use more facts instead of mainly hypothetical situations, and use less negative facts about the study.