| |
The lecture explains why the reading passage's claim that the painting suggested as Jane Austen's portrait cannot stand by following reasons. First, reading passage suggests that Austen's family has claimed that the girl in the portrait is Jane Austen. Nevertheless, the family endorsed this claim 70 years after Jane passed away. It means that they were never able to see Jane Austen in real life, especially in her teenage period.
Second, reading passage asserts that the girl in the portrait matches the sketch of Jane's sister, Cassandra's, which was considered as the only description of Jane Austen's appearance before the portrait. However, the lecturer disputes this by suggesting that it could be one of Jane's relatives. Jane Austen had a large family so she had lots of relatives and their children her age. (offspring in that range of age.)
Finally, reading passage argues that the style of the portrait links to a painter Ozias Humpry, who actively painted in the period of Jane Austen's teenage years. The lecture disputes this by looking into the canvas used in the painting. The fact is, it is a mere assumption that the style might be Ozias. However, what could be clearly detected is what kind of canvas was used for the portrait. By tracking the stamp which indicates the painter, (who made the canvas,) it turned out to be made by Williams Legg. (What is more is that) Furthermore, he only started to sell canvas in London when Jane Austen was already 27 years old. (which never could be used for painting teenage Jane on his canvas.)
In a nutshell, based on the (by going all these) three reasons mentioned above, the lecture successfully goes against the reading passage.
Writing Score (0-30): 21-24
Score (0-5): 3.25-3.775
Grammar & Feedback: 문법적 오류와 어색한 표현들이 몇 개 있었습니다. 내용 정리는 잘 하셨어요. 수고하셨습니다.