In the passage, the author believes that studying Venus is a good idea even though it has many dangers. The author gives many different reasons as to why they think that Venus is a worthy exploration. I do not think that the author supports their idea very well in the passage. The author did a poor job of supporting the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it carries.

I believe that the author does not support their opinion well in the passage. This is because they heavily focus on the negatives of exploring Venus, rather than the positives. For example, in paragraph 2, the author says, "Each previous mission was unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." Because the author included this, it automatically leaves the reader with a negative connotation towards the exploration of Venus. The author then continues to show more negatives of the exploration of Venus in the third paragraph. The author states, "These conditions are far more extreme than anything humans encounter on Earth; such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans and would liquefy many metals." Once again, this makes the reader think negatively about Venus. Since the author included this in the passage, it gives the reader another reason to think poorly of studying Venus.

Another thing that the author did poorly was not including any counterarguments to the cons of exploring Venus. It seems that the author does not care about the negatives of Venus' exploration and completely ignores them. They should of included counterarguments against the cons that thy stated. If they did this, it would further prove their opinion. Instead, they just give ideas of how an expedition to Venus would occur. The author then makes it worse. In paragraph six, the author goes on to give more negatives of the process of Venus' exploration. They say, "However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere." This claim adds more negative to the passage. The author poorly supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit.

The author does not support their opinion that studying Venus is a good idea even though it has many difficulties. The author displays too many cons of studying Venus instead of the pros. The passage leaves the reader with a negative opinion, rather than a positive one. The author poorly executes their goal of persuading the audience that it is a good idea to explore and study Venus.