text: The author attempts to provide some factual basis for their claim that visiting Venus has worth, despite risks. They primarily included these in paragraph 4. The main ideas they used were that "it (Venus) may well have once been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system" (4). This fact fails to support their argument, however, since the author does not provide any justification as to how it might make exploring Venus a more desireable option, especially considering the risks. It would make far more sense to simply explore a differnet planet that ws more hospitable and could actually be studied. The phrase "once have been" is also very telling. Certainly Venus is no longer at all Earth like save for its geology, as the planet has vastly different conditions to Earth in almost every other aspect. The author also states that Venus can "sometimes be our nearest option for a planetary visit" (4). This fact also fails to support their conclusion that there is worth in exploring Venus, because the planet is only sometimes the closest option. At other times Mars is closer to Earth than Venus. If this is the case, then it would make far more sense to explore Mars as it is far less hostile to life than Venus is. The author again fails to provide sufficient logical evidence to validate the conclusion that Venus is worth the risk, especially because there is a safer alternative that is sometimes even closer than Venus.