The author of this article did a decent job at explaining why studying Venus is worth it despite any dangers that it has. They don't really explain why we should risk ourselves to study Venus but rather how we could do it. The author talks about how NASA have an idea to hover people above Venus and sending machines down to the surface of Venus.

The first thing that the author talks about is NASA's idea to hover people over Venus to get a closer look at it. In paragraph five it says, "scientists to float above the fray". It also states, "Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans". This dosen't give us a reason that Venus is worth exploring even though it's risky. It only tells us about ow we are able to get a closer look at the planet with our own eyes an not just some pictures or videos. Informing the reader about how to do something won't make them believe that it is worth doing.

The second thing that the author talks about is getting machines on the surface of Venus. In paragraph seven it states, "mechanical parts can be made more resistant to pressure, heat, and other forces". It also says, "looking back to an old technology called mechanical computers". These quotes demonstrate that the author is more focused on informing us on how we can do this rather than why we should do this. If people don't know why they should do something, then they wont care how they should do it. The author should have put more evidence on how we could use what we learn on Venus in stead of how we could get there safely.

In conclusion, the author didn't do the best job on explaining why it's worth to go to Venus because they focused on how we were supposed to get there. If they didnt just talk about how we were planning to get people and achines there, then it would have been alot better for explaining why it's worth it to study Venus despite of the many dangers.