The author supports his arguement quite effectively, though not without any flaws. The author effectively lists off the benefits of exploring Venus, and proper proposals for doing so, however the complexity and unrealistic assumptions of the solutions as well as the negative descripton of Venus take away from its point rather than benefiting it.

The effective conveying of benefits helps to support its idea of risking danger for the reward of landing. The author describes how Venus is relatable with earth which creates a connection between the reader and Venus, as well as creating a mood of hospitality and familiarity. It also states that because Venus is the "nearest option for a planetary visit", it is a benefit to inhabit Venus first. This persuasion effectivly uses logos to show the audience logical reasoning for why the scientists should endevour to research Venus.

The author's proposals for ways to accomplish these tasks help to build ethos in the writing, as it shows that the author knows about the information that is displayed. The introduction of NASA also builds up this ethos, as to bring the audience to better trust in the author. The examples of proposals also provide evidence for how such ideas could be accomplished, such as the ideas of "systems that use mechanical parts" and therefore add to the logos of the paragraph, as the author logically explains why the proposals would be beneficial.

However in contrast with the effective support of the main idea, the author also convey's information and techniques that oppose his idea. Firstly, the author makes assumptions about how much technology would have advanced, and because his proposal for a "blimp-like vehicle" is so technologically advanced and seems outlansish, the mood created for the audience is incredulous and skeptical. This does not benefit the writer's ideas because of the audiences mood, and therefore the author loses the audiences trust in proper solutions.

Also negatively impacting the main idea are his descriptions of Venus. This is because the author uses a lot of evidence to support how dangerous Venus is, in direct contrast to what he should be supporting. Because of the logos used to show how dangerous Venus is, like how it has "temperatures average over 800 degrees" the audience is put into a mood of impossibility and doubt. Because of the mood of the audience, the audience is also less likely to understand why Venus could be beneficial if the landscape is so terribly trecherous.

In conclusion, the writer does a fairly effective job at expressing is ideas, in his building of ethos and pathos that help to support why Venus is so amazing, and how to explore it, however fails by accidently creating a mood of unbelievablity, and therefore losing the audience to the uncertain nature of the situation. If the author had attempted to create a mood that was more beneficial to persuading the audience, the passage would have been extremely effective in persuading the audience of his thesis.