Sample Answer:
In the lecture, the professor casts serious doubts on the article and maintains that none of the evidences proving that the painting is not a work of Rembrandt mentioned in the reading paragraphs are convincing. The professor presents several evidences as follows to illustrate her opinions.
The first point retorted by the professor is as to fur collar. She asserts that the fur collar was not part of the original portrait. In actuality, analysis of the portrait has proved that the fur collar was painted over the top of the original portrait 100 years after the original portrait was made. This may result from the fabricator's intention of increasing the value of the portrait by making the woman in the portrait dressed like a aristocratic lady, which directly contradicts the author's statement.
Secondly, in terms of the supposed error with light and shadow, opposite to the reading materials, the professor points out that, after removing the added fur collar
In the lecture, the professor casts serious doubts on the article and maintains that none of the evidences proving that the painting is not a work of Rembrandt mentioned in the reading paragraphs are convincing. The professor presents several evidences as follows to illustrate her opinions.
The first point retorted by the professor is as to fur collar. She asserts that the fur collar was not part of the original portrait. In actuality, analysis of the portrait has proved that the fur collar was painted over the top of the original portrait 100 years after the original portrait was made. This may result from the fabricator's intention of increasing the value of the portrait by making the woman in the portrait dressed like a aristocratic lady, which directly contradicts the author's statement.
Secondly, in terms of the supposed error with light and shadow, opposite to the reading materials, the professor points out that, after removing the added fur collar