text: Finally, the author provides significantly more evidence for the counter to their argument, than they do for the argument itself. Throughout the article the author gives details about how incredibly inhospitable Venus is to human life. For example, they state "On the planet's surface temperatures average over 800 degrees Farenheit" (3), and "the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet" (3). By providing this evidence the author is attempting to acknowledge the detractors to their argument and then provide a rebuttal to it. However, the author provides a much greater wealth of evidence for the idea that Venus is wholly inhospitable than they do for the idea that this difficulty is worth it. They provide only two brief facts on why exploration might be necessary, but have an example of how dangerous Venus is in nearly every paragraph. Ultimately this causes the claim that Venus exploration is worth the risk to lose validity because it creates a perception amongst the readers that the risks associated with the exploration of Venus far outweigh the benefits. It also contributes to an overall lack of focus in the article as the author constantly interjects facts about Venus' dangers.