Isben believed that a “dramatist” should never answer questions, only ask them. What questions are asked? Does Isben, in fact, propose any...

Excellent question. If the job of a dramatist is to ask questions, and not to answer them, then Ibsen does precisely that in A Doll's House. 

In notes Ibsen wrote regarding the play in 1878, Ibsen states:

“A woman cannot be herself in contemporary society, it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsel and judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view.”

This, we can definitely classify as Ibsen's central inquiry. This is the hypothesis that would be tested in his play. As any other inquiry, it begs for questions such as:

• To what point is that statement true? 


• What things happen that prevent women to be themselves in their society?

And, most importantly

• How are women judged, based on their actions?

In the play, Ibsen would have provided answers to these questions if he had taken sides. He did not.

Instead, he left it up to the audience to submit their final opinions. Indeed, A Doll's House caused a huge shock when it was first staged. Part of the shock was precisely that Ibsen did not judge, punish, condone, or condemn Nora's final choice of leaving her husband and children to fulfill the "duties" that she had "to herself" –– something unheard of in the 1870's. 

Ibsen simply illustrated for the audience very realistic images of how things were really happening in the traditional middle-class family dynamic. These images included the reality of a men-dominated society, the true roles of women in many middle-class families, the fixation of people with money (and the preoccupation of lacking it), and the reality of many marriages, in which women were simply taken for granted.

What the people made of what Ibsen showed them, that was up to them. Ibsen was not to decide for anyone whether what he was showing to them was educational, moral, or even appropriate. That was his job as a dramatist.

It is no wonder that, when the play was staged in Germany, the idea of Nora leaving was so radical that Ibsen was forced to write an alternative ending where Nora stays with her family. Ibsen called that "barbaric." His reaction to this says precisely what the quote in this question states:

The dramatist does not answer questions, merely asks them. 

If Ibsen had answered questions in his plays, a lot of things would have found closure, and a "final lesson" would have been "learned," for instance:

• Krogstad, a man who did bad things, would have suffered his karma, rather than find love to make him a better person: "Bad things happen to bad people."


• Christine would have found a perfect man to take care of her forever and not a broken man to "sort of fix" her sad life: "Good things happen to good people."


• Torvald would have rescued Nora from her distress, taught her a lesson on how to be a better wife, and would have forgiven her on the spot: "All men make wonderful husbands."


• Nora would have learned her "wifely lesson" and would have remained in the household, lesson learned, becoming a better mom and wife. "Women need  husbands to teach them about life."


• Dr. Rank would have recovered from his bad health because, after all, he is a doctor, so he deserves better- "Good things should happen to good people."

If you think about this, none of these things happen. In fact, nobody really finds any closure, and no real lessons are learned, except for Nora learning that she is a toy wife that has been quite mistreated. Hence, Ibsen most definitely poses points of conversation in his play, but he is not to answer anything: he is being a true dramatist.