Research Paper on A Doll House and the concept of “the problem play”

Description

Information about the Research Paper on A Doll House and the concept of “the problem play”
Be sure to review not only the syllabus statements relevant to the research paper (for information such as length=2,000 words; value=250 points) BUT ALSO any previous relevant statements or Announcements (such as the Plagiarism Statement in Course Information).This paper is a traditional research paper using a primary source (the play A Doll House) and secondary sources (only the definitions/descriptions of the concept “problem play” from the two specified websites ). See below.
Read the sample research paper in our textbook on pages 1992-2001 for aspects such as the following:
*how to incorporate primary source examples *how to incorporate secondary source material
WHAT TO INCLUDE: Your introductory paragraph should skillfully and effectively incorporate the definitions/descriptions of the concept of “the problem play,” based on the two specialized weblink sources from Oxford and Carson-Newman in Course Information. Throughout the paper, there should be a balance between direct quotes and your own words (paraphrase) with appropriate documentation. The bulk of the research paper should discuss all the specific ways/instances/examples of how the play A Doll House illustrates and exemplifies the concept of “the problem play.” The most effective approach is to specifically connect aspects of the problem play to actual illustrations from A Doll House all the way through the paper. Above all, this paper is NOT biographical. In other words, there should not be anything about Ibsen’s background, nor his personal life, etc. The paper deals solely with the play A Doll House and the concept of “problem play.” Overall, be sure to have a fairly even balance between the following:
*examples from the play A Doll House (brief quotes and paraphrases—documented)
*secondary source material (just the definitions/descriptions of “problem play” from the two weblinks). See Course Information. Avoid SparcNotes, CliffsNotes, Wikipedia, and other similar “lightweights.” Consult with me if this is not clear.
*your own assessments and conclusions about the correlation between the play and the concept
If there are places in your paper where you can effectively use any of the ELEMENTS we have studied this semester, such as aspects of characterization, irony, etc., then you should include them. Do not “force” the use of these ELEMENTS, but weave them into the discussion.

Everything related to documentation, Works Cited page, etc. should follow MLA (Modern Language Association) style. One reliable site is owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01 MLA is the format used in the sample paper in our book. Email me any questions you have.

Sources must be:

The Norton introduction to literature, shorter 13th edition

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms.html

http://msdarlingsenglish.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/8/8/14880058/oxford_dictionary_of_literary_terms.pdf

Sample Solution

s demonstrated by A. J. Ayer in his marvelous work titled; Language Truth and Logic, battles that; a sentence will be extremely tremendous to a given individual if, and just if, he realizes how to check the proposal that it infers to communicate; that is, regardless of whether he grasps what observations would lead him under specific conditions to recognize the suggestion as being legitimate, or dismiss it as being bogus. This implies if some perception can be portrayed that would be applicable in deciding reality or deception of a suggestion, at that point the recommendation will be huge; if not, it will be unimportant.

Their view is that each noteworthy proclamation either is an announcement of formal rationale or is an announcement of science was comprehensively deciphered to incorporate particular sentences, for example, ‘This is Blue,’ just as articulations of physical laws, every single other explanation were, carefully, silly. Besides, recommendations that require a type of observational examination for their affirmation are named ‘engineered’ while those whose reality follows from their importance are called ‘scientific.’

In clarifying the undeniable nature measure, the Positivists further made a qualification between suggestions that are confirmed and those that are unquestionable or better still between pragmatic obviousness and evidence on a basic level. For instance the suggestion; “There is heavenly life outside the planet Earth” Although this recommendation have not been checked by anybody yet there can be a few stages to confirm it, possibly somebody needs to take a trip to another piece of the universe to check it. This suggestion is noteworthy since there can be some likelihood to check it. It is on a fundamental level undeniable and henceforth is important.

Consider the suggestion ‘God live in the Heavenly spot,’ what conditions would uncover this recommendation to be valid? There is no significant perception we could make that would demonstrate the suggestion either to be valid or bogus. In this way, the suggestion is definitely not a psychological critical articulation.

2.6 Karl Popper and the boundary issue

Karl Popper presents distortion as the measuring stick to judge what is logical and informal. Along these lines, settling the issue of boundary which has since a long time ago existed between the Natural Sciences and the Pseudo-Sciences. He contends that; for a speculation to be seen as test, such theory should generally have the power of conflicting with possible and potential recognitions for him, hypotheses are to be exposed to basic testing and investigation. The point of any great researcher isn’t to purify through water a hypothesis with