The reading and the article are both about a portrait of the famous English novelist, Jane Austen. While the author states that the portrait is image of she and give three arguments to support it, the lecturer refutes this saying that the evidences are not convincing, and gives his reasons.
To begin, the reading passage states that Austin's family gave permission to use the portrait as an illustration of the novelist and also recognized that the person in the portrait was Jane Austin. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that the permission was given more than 70 years after Jane's death, therefore, nobody of them are able to recognize if the person in the image was the novelist or not because they could not see her in real life.
Second, the text argues that person in the portrait has similar characteristics as the sketch. The professor, on the contrary, mentions that there aren't evidences that this image is for Austin and it could be for some close family member. For example, one of her nieces who resembled her a lot.
The last author's argument, is that, although the portrait was elaborated by an anonymous painter, the style of painting is similar to the painter Ozias Humphrey. He was active at the time Jane was a teenager. In fact, he might be Austen's family painter at the time. The lecturer against this, claims that the name of the seller of the canvas, mentioned on the back of the portrait, indicates that the seller started selling after the novelist was 27.
In conclusion, the arguments in the reading passage, based on the evidence that the lecturer provided, are all refuted.