In "The Challeneges of Exploring Venus", the author claims that the obstacles that stand on the way of studying Venus should not be the reason why scientists don't explore it. The author is not consistent throughout the article and does not present solid information or evidence that convinces the reader that exploring Venus is worth risking lives.

The author begins the article by comparing Venus to Earth and says that both of them are similar both in density and in size, but then moves on to stating that "not a single spaceship has touched down on Venus in more than three decadaes" (paragraph 2). After that statement the author lists all of the dangers that would come with exploring Venus: "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid in Venuss atmosphere. On the planets surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet" (paragraph 3). By that point the author has made clear that Venus is incredibly dangerous and that studying it means sending researchers to an highly risky zone, and may result in devastating failure.

The contraditiction begins as soon as the author begins to explain the reasoning behind even considering visits to the planet's surface. By that point, the author was using real data and solid information to explain the dangers of the planet's surface, however, as soon as the author started reasoning on why the expedition should happen, his arguments were not as solid and were based on assumptions: "It may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth"(paragraph 4). The use of terms such as "it may well once have been" or "was probably" do not give the reader the confidence that they need to believe in the author's claims, that is based on "probably" and "most likely" expressions.

By the end of paragraph 6 the author even writes about his own contradiction: "Venus would need to get up close and personal despite the risks. Or maybe we should think of them as challenges." Such passage shows the reader that even the writer doesn't seem to believe in this mission and that the author needs to keep telling himself that the risks of sending someone to Venus are, in reality, simply "challenges" that need to be overcome. After explaining NASA's work on other approaches to studying Venus, the author actually refers to Venus's surface as chaos, and then concludes the article by claiming that "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation" (paragraph 8), a claim that contradicts previous statements made by the author himself.

In conclusion, the author contradicts himself a series of times and does not present nearly enough evidence to support his main claim. By using expression such as "was probably" to explain the history of Venus and why NASA should explore it, the author creates a statement based on assumptions and not based on real data. Claims that Venus is a very challenging place to examine closely are consistent throughout the article and the author never discredits them, on the contrary, he reinforces them. With that being said, the author is not consistent and does not make valid claims or statements that make the reader feel the need to support explorations and studies on Venus.