Throughout reading this article I thought it provided very good and extensive research. Although I did see some major issues with the leading point of the passage. This author provided very good research but the research and evidence throughout the entire article controdicted their main message. To make this article better, more evidence on why studying venus is benefical should be provided to support their claim.

In this article the evidence they use for example: "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" and also "A thick atmosphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus" supports the controdicting claim that going to Venus is too dangerous with too many complications. Throughout the whole passage the author states many reasons on why it's too dangerous to go to Venus and all the complications that would happen if going there. They also show all the major problems with NASA's idea of a solution, but never came up with their own possible idea of a solution. This leads you to believe that the author is against going to Venus. I dont disagree that going to Venus will gain us insight on the planet, spark imagination, and create innovation but the author's claim needs to be more supported and obvious throught the passage.

Some good things about this passage is that they do provide great evidence and research. They provide input from NASA and NASA's insight on the whole thing and a possible solution. They also provide facts about the atmosphere and about the conditions of the planet. Them providing all this evidence helps the reader themselves have almost enough information to come up with their own opinion on the topic. Although I still stand by this article needing much more information on why and how we could go to Venus safe and affectively.

Overall this article's information and research was great and really did inform me about the planet, but the conclusion ruiened it all. The whole time (paragraphs 1-7) the author lead all the readers to believe that going to Venus has too many dangers and isnt in our best interest, yet the conclusion stated that going to Venus would be a great oppurtunity and 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". If the passage had evidence all throught that going to Venus is beneficial, it would be a perfect article but i was all around confused when I found out the author was all for going to Venus and it ruiened and confused the whole article.          