As the author defends the claim that the exploration of Venus is a "worthy pursuit," I, however, believe that this statement is not proven very efficiently. Although the author refers to NASA and the experiments they've carried out, the information just does not sufficiently back up the statement that Venus is a "worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." The author continuously describes the challenge it would be for humans to carry out the study of Venus from space, as well as using terms that convey the assumptions he or she is making based on his or her opinion. Many risks would be taken in order to physically explore Venus, so with this information in mind, I believe the author did not support the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers.

In order for mankind to study the "cloud-draped world," they would have to undergo much training to even be prepared to come near Venus and its harsh conditions. As stated in the text, the conditons on the planet are "far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth." Even with advanced technology that we have today, the article states that "no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." If the technology we have today can't even survive the conditions on Venus, how are humans supposed to be able to? Even though the author claims the conditions are "not easy, but survivable for humans," the temperature can climb up to over 800 degrees Fahrenheit. These pieces of evidence from the excerpt convey the idea that Venus and its characteristics are far too dangerous for humans to even go near.

In addition to Venus' extreme conditions, the challenge of collecting physical evidence from the planet would be extremely difficult as well. Even though humans could possibly hover 30 miles above the ground level, the texts states that the vast distance would provide only "limited insight on ground conditions," and it would "[render] standard forms of photography and videography ineffective." Along with that, the author admits that "researchers would not be able to take samples...from a distance." The challenge that the study provides would simply not be worth the time, money, and risks. If man were to go to extreme lengths to reach within 30 miles of a planet and not be able to collect and evidence or data, it would not be a successful mission if the goal was to obtain new information about the planet.

Moreover, the author's word choice contributes to the idea that his or her claim is not very well supported. When examining the similarities between Earth and Venus, the author uses the word "probably," saying that "Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." The word "probably" gives off the impression that the author is making an assumption about the fact that Venus could support life just like Earth based on a common feature between the two planets. It is dangerous to make assumptions about subjects such as this, because it would be very costly if it turned out to be incorrect in the end.

After considering both sides of this controversial claim, I believe the author did not support the claim that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. Although the author referred to the study being beneficial to man's sense of imagination and innovation, it is simply just too dangerous. The author repeatedly describes the challenge it would be for humans to carry out the study of Venus from space, as well as word choice that conveys the assumptions he or she makes based on their own knowledge. Many risks would be taken in order to physically explore Venus, and I believe the dangers could be more costly than the knowledge gained through the experience. I believe the author did not support the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers.