Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.

The article and the lecture are both about interpreting the Lascaux cave painting. While the author of the paper argues that the painting is depicted to ensure a prosperous hunt, the lecturer disputes the claims represented by the article. His position is that the purposes provided by the writer are not compelling. According to the reading, the animals that are the main figures in the painting are large mammals that Paleolithic people hunted. The writer mentions that the depictions may illustrate these animals' seasonal migrations, which were important. This specific reason is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that some of the animals in the paintings are the ones that did not hunt by humans, such as cats. Additionally, some animals, such as reindeer, the main prey for local people, have not been depicted in the paintings. Moreover, the animals in the picture have little wounds, which may demonstrate that hunting was not the subject of the paintings. Secondly, the author suggests that the paintings show humans with animal heads, which is a sign for the illustration of hunters. In the article, it is said that the hunters hide from animals by wearing an animal head mask. The lecturer, however, asserts that some animals' heads are not the ones humans hunted. She goes on to say that the position of animal heads on the human body is incompatible with reality. Finally, the author puts forth the idea that paintings lead to reality in many cultures. The writer contends that it is logical that the hunters who depicted the paintings aimed to be successful in their hunting. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that in some cultures, the painting process occurred as a communication process with their ancestors. He noted that it was a kind of ceremony and is nothing to do with the effect of it in reality.
What to do next: