In relatively modern science, there have been multiple discoveries of extrasolar planets, also known as exoplanets. These specific planets are classified to orbit a star outside of our solar system, other than the Sun. In these discoveries, scientists claim to uncover the secrets of these unexplored areas in order to determine their compatibility with terrestrial conditions. Even within our own solar system, Mars is a popular subject of controversy over its ability to support life. Even with doubts, many scientists still say they believe that life could have existed on the planet long ago. Why do scientists persist in clinging to the possibility of discovering another planet similar to Earth and capable of supporting life? In Lisa Messeri's article "What's So Special About Another Earth?" from the August 25, 2016 New York Times, she expertly weaves astronomical diction and ethos throughout her article to examine why we are so insistent on finding another Earth-like planet, even when the odds are not in his favor. From the beginning of his article, Messeri establishes a more scientific vocabulary that remains fluid throughout the rest of the article. By using words like “Goldilocks” and “red dwarfs,” Messeri assumes that his audience is educated enough in astronomy to understand these terms and be able to raise larger questions and consider larger problems. Although Messeri's article is intended to reach more knowledgeable readers, through the use of astronomical diction as she incorporates it into her argument and the insertion of historical examples such as "the launch in 2009 of Kepler, a space telescope dedicated to the search for exoplanets", it unintentionally isolates some of its readers who are not aware of the...... middle of paper ......lit but with more diversity in how to apply his ideas with different techniques and devices other than simply strained with ethos, Messeri's argument could have been more convincing. In more theoretical situations such as Messeri's argument about the persistence of exploration of another Earth, establishing a solid skeleton for the article with solid credibility is the first step in convincing the public of Messeri's claims. In the absence of a solid solution to the argument posed, his incorporation of astronomically appropriate diction helps reinforce his expertise on the topic at hand and why we should listen to what is being said. Although not all elements of the article were strong enough to support such a controversial topic, Messeri managed to get his point across adequately by explaining why we humans are so intensely seeking to find a planet sister..