The author included a thesis statement, which is not clear enough to answer the essential questions. The thesis statement is general and does not clearly elaborate on the specific issue the author talks about in the main body. The transition between the thesis and the main body does not flow. The thesis statement only elaborates on the route of the trade goods but does not present an argument that is discussed in the main body.
The essay does not provide important information to react to the thesis but comes up with reasons for exploration. Several reasons have been outlining in the main body with the primary reason being the acquisition of wealth. The thesis is not supported in the main body although it provides sufficient evidence and the main reasons for exploration with a good analysis of the evidence for instance religion as a motivator to exploration. The points in the main body are well organized although not providing an elaboration to the thesis. The author provides an exhaustive account of the relation between different actors at different times for instance the assistance that Queen Isabella offered to Columbus.
The claims are well supported by obtainable evidence. For instance, the early explorers searched for maritime routes because they were cheaper to transport their goods as compared to land (Seymour, 23) .The author used footnotes they are not included in the bibliography at the end. The author explained how the quoted evidence supports the essay but left out some vital information, which should be included in the conclusion of rough draft.
The impacts of the exploration to different people and countries should have been included. The exact length of time that wealth acquisition took place in disguise of exploration and the success of the works of Columbus and his men in helping Queen Isabella to spread religion.
Seymour, Michael J. The Transformation of the North Atlantic World: 1492-1763. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004. Print.