summarize the ponits made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific arguments made in the reading passage.

The lecturer claims that the full-length portrait of the teenage girl isn't Jane Austin, so this contradicts the reading passage's statement that we should believe that the painting is of Jane Austin, and not anyone else. To begin with, according to the lecture, the lecturer argues that the portrait was approved for publication by the Austen family seventy years after Jane Austen's death, so the extended family members might have published it without seeing Jane in person. The second point is the difference in the portrait's resemblance to Cassandra, Jane's sister's sketch of Jane. The lecturer confirms that this painting could be likely to one of Jane's relatives. This statement is supported by the knowledge that Jane had many relatives who were teenagers, but the reading passage says that the features of the painting are quite similar to those of Jane. Finally, due to the lecture, the stamp on the back of the canvas where the portrait was painted proved that it was bought from a seller named William. Research proved that William didn't sell canvases when Austin was a teenager, but only when his age was twenty-seventh, so this support the girl in the painting could not be Jane Austin. In opposition to this claim, the reading passage contends the style of the painting is like that of Ozias Humphry, and he was an active portrait painter at the same time Jane was a teenager, it must have been Jane in the portrait.
Submitted by hazem on
What to do next: