In this article, the author presents us with facts about what makes Venus dangerous, and why we should try to study it despite the danger that comes with it. He provides many examples of the harsh conditions of Venus, but is lacking when it comes to reasons why we should continue to study it. Safety is the number one priority in all scientific research, and I don't think this author provides enough reasons why studying Venus is worth the risk. Furthermore, when he does provide his reasons they are quickly proved wrong by himself in later paragraphs, which lowers his point immensly.

The author writes a lot about the challenges of going to Venus, and what makes Venus so dangerous. Yet, he barely provides any information on why it is important to go there. In paragraph 3 he writes, "...such an environment would crush even a submarine accustumed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals." He also writes about the extreme temperatures, 97% CO2 atmosphere, sulfuric acid clouds, and things like erupting volcanoes, earthquakes, and lightning strikes. All of these challenges and dangers in one paragraph, and not even one reason why we should face these challenges and go there. In the next paragraph he says, "Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." He also go on to provide more information about how similar Venus is to our own planet, but still, no good reasons why we should spend money researching this planet. When you are talking about visiting a planet as dangerous as Venus, you need a lot of good reasons to go there. However, this author is lacking in his reasons, which makes him sound unprofessional.

Without providing a lot of research, it is hard to agree with what the author is saying. He does not do a great job of proving his point that Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents. In paragraph 5 he writes, "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would allow scientists to float above the fray. Imagine a blimp-like vehicle hovering 30 or so miles above the roiling Venusion landscape." At first, this seems like a viable solution to the dangers of Venus, and sounds like a good way to safely research the planet more closely. However, it's quickly shot down and is identified as a less than desireable solution in the next paragraph by the author himself. He states facts about how we wouldn't be able to capture photographs from this distance through Venus's thick atmosphere. He also points out that we would not be able to retreive samples of rock, gas, or anything else from this distance. This is the only good possible solution to the dangers of Venus that the author has presented thus far, and he debunks the idea almost entirely in the very next paragraph. This is a terrible way to convince the readers of his opinion; that, despite the risks Venus presents, it is a worthy pursuit to study it.

In conclusion, the author presents more ideas that go against his point, than ideas that acually support it. He does a terrible job of supporting his ideas, and when he has a good point, he quickly proves to us himself that it is not a good idea at all. Taking all of these things into account, we can conclude that the author does a very poor job of supporting the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers.