(A) We can presume that this is false. W, B, and M are all about personal stories. They believe that the inclusion of personal stories will add a new dimension to legal discourse that will "convince legal insiders to listen to those not fluent in legal language." Objectivism on the other hand is all about being strictly informative with facts - no passion, no emotion, nothing but facts! Thus, personal stories by definition really cannot be in line with objectivist ideals (or at least it would make a really boring story if they did so
)(C) We actually don't know too much about how W, B, and M feel that legal narratives will relate to tranquility. We could probably eliminate this answer choice for this reason alone. However, do note that get the author saying that "alternative narratives can [...] disturb tranquility." This is probably a trap answer for people word-matching.
(D) We actually do not know anything about accuracy at all. In fact, W, B, and M do not show any concern for accuracy but rather they show a concern for inclusivity and empowerment. Thus, we definitely cannot assume that W, B, and M would agree that the new legal narratives structure is MORE accurate than another.
(E) This looked GREAT until we get to the final part..."than are other forms of discourse." We only know two forms of discourse: the legal narratives and objectivism. W, B, and M never compared the other forms of discourse.
(B) is the correct answer. This is supported by 55 onward when it says that the narrative will form a "new collectivity based on emotional empathy ... by overcoming difference in background and training"