text: 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.