The author did not do a good job supporting the claim that studying Venus is a worthy pusuite despite the dangers it presents. Overall the text had little information about why we should explore Venus, the information given was not strong enough to support the claim, and with all of the dangers of exploring Venus it wouldn't be worth it.

The text had little information about why Venus is a nessecary place to go, even with its dangerous climate. Pharagraph 4 and 8 are the only paragraphs that talked about why we need to go to Venus, the other 6 having nothing to do with it. The article stated, "If our sister planet is so inhospitable, why are scientists even discussing further visits to its surface?" After that statement it went into why Venus is similar to Earth, however it didn't give any strong indicators why space travel to this planet would ever by nessecary until pharagraph 8. In this pharagraph it stated, "Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itslef, but also beacuse human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating factors." This statement explains why the author think it is nessecary, but the article needs more about this topic to give a solid opinion.

That being said, even with the little information given about the claim, the information isn't very convincing to the claim. The article stated, "Futhermore, recall that Venus can sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit, a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel." Even though this statement is supposed to help support the claim, it doesn't give a strong straightforward, answer as to why its necessary to go to Venus. It talked about how it would effect the long time frames of space travel, but not how it would help it or what that has to do with going to Venus. The article also stated, "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." This statement explains why the author thinks we should explore Venus, however the claim is not supported by facts and doesn't explain why we, the public, should want to explore Venus.

Despite the little information given about the claim, the author added so many negatives about how dangerous Venus was stating things like, " highly corrosive sulfuric acid", "average temperatures over 800 degrees fahrenheit", "97 percent carbon dioxide blanket", and "atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." The author provided solutions to these problems that scientists are working on, however would the time and money be worth it if its not a positive fact the structures sent to Venus will even survive? I would say no.

With all that being said, the author does not support that the pursuit to Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers present. As said earlier, with the lttle information about it given, the information not having facts to back it up, and all the dangers possible, the article does not support this idea well.