DaringDerby Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Hello folks! I've recently been set loose to begin work on my History IA, considering a question along the lines of "Were Objections to the Treaty of Versailles Justified?". I've been doing some research, looking through books and reading through the actual treaty, and I'm beginning to realise I need to narrow down my question, because there are so many conventions and points to cover.Would it be considered too contrived or too narrow a question if I was to focus on certain articles or chapters? For example, just on the war reparations, or articles regarding disarmament, etc.? Or could I combine certain chapters/articles and simply disregard others completely? So I might decide to focus on reparations and disarmament, while not approaching the rest.While I know this would be much easier to handle, I'm worried incase I'll be penalised for a bad question. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmi Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 Your question is really broad and you're right, you would need to narrow it down. Picking a certain article or chapter of the Treaty is a good way to narrow this down because it allows you to focus on the objections relating to that article/chapter specifically and not the entire treaty, which you wouldn't be able to cover in a history IA anyways; an EE maybe, but definitely not a history IA.Just pick the article that interests you most and that you have a decent number of sources for, and I think you will be OK. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.