text: The author never truely explained his claim that he thought exploring Venus was worth the risks and complications. For most of the artical he rambles on telling us about and explaining what was already found out about the planet. He never gave reasoning for believing we sould follow threw with trying to learn more about the planet. He only breifly told us his claim in the last paragraph, paragraph 8. It reads, ¨Striving to meet the challenge presented by Venus has value, not only because of the insight to be gained on the planet itself, but also because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors.¨ He tells us that all we will get from risking our lifes is insite on a dangerous planet that we may not even have use for, and he states that we will be faced with more and or equally intimidating endeavors. It may just be my opinion but that does not seem like very convincing or valid reasons for putting lifes in danger.