First of all, it's really sad that we're teaching poetry with questions like this, because this question really sucks the life and beauty out of reading poetry.
A is your best answer. Obviously knowing the literal meaning of a word is an essential first step to understanding what's happening in a poem. It's hard to analyze a poem if you don't know what the words mean to begin with. Once you know those meanings, you can then move on to thinking about metaphorical or figurative (i.e., non-literal) meanings of the same word.
B is partially right, but it's not the best answer. Certainly knowing the literal meaning of a word CAN help you determine the narrator, but not all poems have narrators, and sometimes the literal meaning won't help you figure out who the narrator is (especially if the narrator is deliberately left unclear).
C and D are wrong, and as a general rule in multiple-choice questions you should be very suspicious of answer-choices that use extreme language (like "useless") or that completely shut down a possibility entirely (which happens in choice C).
Answer:
Nietzsche’s philosophical thoughts on morality argue that a moral code is not in our nature, while
Zimbardo’s argument is that we shouldn’t expect our decisions to be
influenced by morality alone. Nietzsche’s thoughts on morality are
grounded in opposition to Christianity. He begins his argument by
quoting from the Bible, “If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out,” before
labeling the Christian idea as “stupidity” (Paragraph 1). Nietzsche argues
that sensuality is in opposition to Christianity and that the church
“always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists and
Antichristians” (Paragraph 5), adding that “Life has come to an end
where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins” (Paragraph 8). In contrast, Zimbardo
bases his argument on science and proposes that the electric shock
experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram “provides several lessons
about how situations can foster evil” (Paragraph 5). He also uses
conclusions from a 1974 experiment by Harvard anthropologist John
Watson, as well as his own simulated jail experiment, the 1971 Stanford
Prison Experiment, to help support his argument.
