You are an AI essay evaluator. Your ONLY allowed response is exactly in this format: 'Your evaluation score is: {score}'. Do not write anything else. Do NOT provide any feedback, comments, or explanations. Do NOT write <think> tags or any other meta text. Do NOT write any information before or after the evaluation. Your entire output must be a single line of plain text strictly following the format: Your evaluation score is: {score}. You must not deviate from this format under any circumstances. Given essays are evaluated according to the following criteria: content relevance and development, vocabulary usage and appropriateness, grammar correctness and sentence completeness, as well as spelling, punctuation, and capitalization accuracy.
system
Scientists are always finding new things in the solar system, they have been since we figured that we weren't the only planet around. Sometimes I sit and wonder, was earth the original planet or are there aliens? When I look at the sky I see all kinds of stars and shiny things, even Venus, also known as the Evening Star. The author says that we should explore Venus since it is so easy to spot in the night sky. I agree with him, but there are many dangers involved. The author talks about all the dangers in space travel to Venus, but why? If he is trying to claim we should go why add them? He does to support his claim actually. On Venus, there is a thick atmosphere of 97 percent carbon dioxide, with clouds made of sulfuric acids. To make things worse it can get up to 800 degrees, and have atmospheric pressere 90 times more that earth. It could even crush a submarine. Why would the auther even include those? It would make it seem impossible to get there and survive, the robots they've sent have even melted, but he adds these to make a stronger claim on why we should go there. He states "Our travels on Earth and beyond should not be limited by dangers and doubts but should be expanded to meet the very edges of imagination and innovation." The author says we should go even with all the dangers since it could lead to new information. Venus is also the closest making it eaiser to get to despite the harms. A major thing he claims to support Venus is worth studing is that it still has some earthly qualities. He wrote "Long ago, Venus was probably coverd largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like earth. Today, Venus still has some features that are analogous to those on earth." He says that because that planet could of been habitual and could be crucial to information we need about the solar system. This article makes me wonder if humans first lived Venus. If this planet is so important for scientific information, how do we get there and not die? The author has the idea that if we hover 30 miles over the ground there then we would be safe. Planes do that to avoid storms by flying over the storm clouds so that should work for the planet. Most of the harmful conditions are on the ground level of Venus. The author says "At thirty-plus miles above the surface, tempertatures would still be toasty at around 170 degrees fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth." He adds that in there to support the idea of going while being safer. That does have its disadvanteges like not being able to see the ground very well or be able to take samples. To get around that situation, he says we can use some technology used in WW2. Our electronics today are delicate to extreme conditions, but things made with mechanical parts can withstand pressure. We are still left with the question, should be go? I say yes. The author supports his claim well by adding what could happen and how to get around it. If we were to do his idea we would get limited insight but we would be one step closer to understand the solar sytem's planet.
user
Your evaluation score is: 4.0
assistant