The article "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" is simply about Venus and why we should explore it, even though it has many dangers. The author definetley has good evidence to support his or her claim, but I do believe that he or she strays from the main idea of the question throughout the article.

The author does not support this idea enough. As I read throughout the story, I only noticed about one paragragh that was actually explainging why we should explore Venus. According to the prompt, the author is being evaluated on how well he or she supports that claim. I did not see enough support through the whole story. When the author did support the idea though he or she had very good evidence. According to the the article the reason we should explore Venus is because it is the closest planet like ours. I think that the author should go more in depth and explain how and why that is, so that he or she can really pull us in.

Next is that even though the author didn't show a lot of support in why we should explore Venus, he or she did have good evidence on how we would. Most of the story was the author explaining different ways of how we could possibly explore Venus safely. For example, the author explained how NASA has been working on other approaches to study Venus. Like, special electronics made of silicon carbide that have been tested in Venus like conditions and the electronic lasted for three weeks. If the author has good support like this, he or she should most importantly discuss more of why Venus should be explored to spike our interest more in knowing how to do so.

To conclude, the author doesn't support the claim of studying Venus enough. He or she should include more details as of why we would want to study Venus. The author has great support and detail, they just need more evidence to back up those ways of studying the planet. I believe people would have great interest in studying Venus if the author just explained why we should a little bit more.