The author does not support his idea well because he has little of evidence to back up the claims that he made. These claims were that Venus could be useful because of how close it is and he called it a challenge for human curiosity. Neither of the claims he made were to vbalid becauise he would go off topic, provide little evidence, and would talk about the benefits of Venus but not say what they were.

When he claimed that Venus is useful because of how close it is and said " ...Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long frames of space travel." and then said " The value of returning to Venus seems indisputable..." so he made a claim saying that it is a good thing to go to venus but the right after said the value is indisputable but never gave any evidence of why its so good to go to. Then he also claimed that it has value in over coming, that it is a challenge for human curiosity. This is a bad claim because he did not have much evidence or reason to back up going to Venus so he said " Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors." This claim would be much better if he actually listed any good benefits from Venus. Also through the text the author seems to either run out of things to support his claim or he went off topic because he started to talk about what NASA is doing and planning to do to explore Venus like " NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions would be to allow scientist to float above the fray." He would say thing of what people might be able to do to explore Venus with its hostile conditions but he still never said what could be discovered while exploring.

I don't disagree on his point but how he executes getting it across to the audience does not work. If he provided any solid evidence on what could be learned or discovered on Venus like technology or new elements then it would bring more people behind this idea. But that still does not change the fact that his claims of Venus is useful for future visits and its a good challenge for human curiosity, are not valid and he does not to a good jobs of supporting his claims.