Muriel: I admire Favilla' s novels, but she does not deserve to be considered great writer. The point is that, no matter how distinctive her style may be, her subject matter is simply not varied enough. John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. Which one of the following is a point at issue between Muriel and John? ['whether treating a variety of subjects should be a prerequisite for someone to be considered a great writer', 'whether Favilla should be considered a great writer because her style is distinctive', 'whether the number of novels that a novelist has written should be a factor in judging whether that novelist is great', 'whether there are many novelists who are considered to be great but do not deserve to be so considered']