text: The author describes the potential dangers that could result from studying Venus which contradicts their idea that the observations made through studying Venus overweigh the risks. The author is aware of the fact and describes how, "no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours" (paragraph 2). Right off the bat, the author gives their audience the mindset that it is not a good idea to study Venus. Having that fact in the first few paragraphs of the article sets the tone for the rest of the article. In paragraph three, the author goes into great detail about several of the potential dangers that can come from studying Venus because of its, "clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid" (paragraph 3). The frightening environment described strays the audience even further away from believing that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers. Not only does the author describe why dangers are present on the planet Venus, but they also gives analogies in regards to the danger present including the fact that, "such an environment would crush even a submarine accustomed to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans" (paragraph 3). At this point in the article, the idea of having a human explore and study Venus up close in unthinkable. The author tries to justify the dangers by explaining technology that will be used in order to allow individuals to study Venus. The author describes, "a vehicle hovering over Venus" (paragraph 5). At first, the technological advances that could be made sound like a good idea, but the author goes on to say how, "tempertaures would still be toasty at around 170 degress Fahrenheit" (paragraph 5). This fact completely shuts down the idea of the hovering vehicle. The author contradicts their ideas by explaining the dangers in depth and giving reason as to why studying Venus is not a good idea.