Does this sound natural?
*** This is a Toefl writing task. We read some reading and then listen to a lecture. Then we are asked to write about the connection between the reading and the lecture.
I HAVE TWO MAIN QUESTIONS:
1- Is it completely clear to you, what the writing tries to say?
2- Please leave comments wherever I made a mistake.
***
The reading cast doubts on whether the painting is actually attributed to Rembrandt. The lecturer, on the other hand, stands by that the painting is attributed to Rembrandt. There are three points about the painting discussed both by the lecturer and in the reading. First of all is that the woman is wearing a fur collar. Based on the reading, it is a luxurious wearing which is inconsistent with her the kind of her cap. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that the fur collar is added to the original painting by an anonymous person, about 100 years after the underlying painting is done.
Secondly, and again in connection with the fur collar, the reading declares that as the fur collar is dark, the woman's face shouldn't be illuminated by a light from below, but it does in the painting. However, the lecturer states that the main clothing -before the painting is irritated by some anonymous person- is such that does reflect light. Therefore it is absolutely consistent that the woman's face is not partially in shadow.
Finally, the reading asserts that Rembrandt usually painted on single wood panels. The reading says as this painting is not performed on a single panel, it may not belong to Rembrandt. However, the lecturer says that the original painting was on a single wood panel. Due to an unknown reason it is broken sometime and therefore someone has glued these pieces agian to each other.

Question

Does this sound natural?
*** This is a Toefl writing task. We read some reading and then listen to a lecture. Then we are asked to write about the connection between the reading and the lecture.
I HAVE TWO MAIN QUESTIONS:
1- Is it completely clear to you, what the writing tries to say?
2- Please leave comments wherever I made a mistake.
***
The reading cast doubts on whether the painting is actually attributed to Rembrandt. The lecturer, on the other hand, stands by that the painting is attributed to Rembrandt. There are three points about the painting discussed both by the lecturer and in the reading. First of all is that the woman is wearing a fur collar. Based on the reading, it is a luxurious wearing which is inconsistent with her the kind of her cap. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that the fur collar is added to the original painting by an anonymous person, about 100 years after the underlying painting is done.
Secondly, and again in connection with the fur collar, the reading declares that as the fur collar is dark, the woman's face shouldn't be illuminated by a light from below, but it does in the painting. However, the lecturer states that the main clothing -before the painting is irritated by some anonymous person- is such that does reflect light. Therefore it is absolutely consistent that the woman's face is not partially in shadow.
Finally, the reading asserts that Rembrandt usually painted on single wood panels. The reading says as this painting is not performed on a single panel, it may not belong to Rembrandt. However, the lecturer says that the original painting was on a single wood panel. Due to an unknown reason it is broken sometime and therefore someone has glued these pieces agian to each other.

-aquamarine- · Accepted Answer

The reading casts doubt on whether the painting can actually be attributed to Rembrandt. The lecturer, on the other hand, stands by the position that the painting can be attributed to Rembrandt. There are three points about the painting discussed by both the lecturer and the article/book. The first one is that the woman is wearing a fur collar. Based on the reading, it is luxurious attire, and her cap seems out of place. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that the fur collar was added to the original painting by an anonymous person about 100 years after the underlying painting was completed.
Second—and again in connection with the fur collar—the reading declares that because the fur collar is dark, the woman's face shouldn't be illuminated by the light below, but it is in the painting. However, the lecturer states that the main article of clothing (before the painting was altered by some anonymous person) is such that it does reflect the light. Therefore, it is absolutely consistent with the rest of the painting, and the woman's face is not partially in shadow.
Finally, the reading asserts that Rembrandt usually painted on single wood panels. It says that because this painting was not done on a single panel, it may not belong to Rembrandt. However, the lecturer says that the original painting was done on a single wood panel. Due to an unknown reason, it had broken at some point and therefore someone glued those pieces back together again.