The premise with which the multiculturalists begin is unexceptional: t

Really difficult para, but this is how I approached it. workout, kksen18 , ultraaristo18 ,

Summary:
Para 1: Multiculture --> premise: Small grps can change culture of large groups. E.g. of Students
Para 2: need of therapeutic curriculum that explains/interpret "indirect" form of racism
Para 3: Stringent Attitude of a ppl who support multiculturalism is explained -- author seems to be very critical
Para 4: this para is very difficult to interpret. All I understood that the author is explaining about some reversal; going away from traditional beliefs.
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.
====
With this, let's take a look at each question separately:
Q1: “Multiculturalist relativism” is the notion that there is no such thing as impartial or objective knowledge. The author seems to be grounding his criticism of this notion on

To understand this, let's relook at para 5:
The multiculturalists insist on seeing all perspectives as tainted by the perceiver’s particular point of view. Impartial knowledge, they argue, is not possible, because ideas are simply the expression of individual identity, or of the unspoken but inescapable assumptions that are inscribed in a culture or a language.

The question relates to above lines where author mentions that ideas are simply expressions of individual's identity. now let's go through each choice.

Option (A) the clear evidence that science has indeed discovered “truths” that have been independent of both language and culture.
My explanation: Can't be interpreted from the para:
Reason:
The options says science has indeed discovered “truths” --> let's see if this is correct OR not. For this, let's look at para 4:
The time-honored American mixture of assimilation and traditional allegiance is denounced as a danger to racial and gender authenticity. This is an extraordinary reversal of the traditional liberal commitment to a “truth” that transcends parochialisms. In the new race/class/gender formation, universality is replaced by, among other things, feminist science Nubian numerals (as part of an Afro-centric science), and what Marilyn Frankenstein of the University of Massachusetts-Boston describes as “ethno-mathematics,” in which the cultural basis of counting comes to the fore.

Meaning:
1) "Science refers to": I could be wrong here --> but this is how I interpreted: If some Afro student joins US university for MS in Maths, he/she would prefer counting numbers in their Afro language rather than using what the universal OR American way of counting. The word science here simply represents "local/Afro methods" of counting numbers.
2) "Truths refers to": Afro member counting numbers in Afro-centric language is the TRUTH. That is how their culture is. so obviously, the a belief that everyone should adapt to American ways of counting numbers, will be 'reversal' to afro culture.

Again, now if we try to relate these 2 points, SCIENCE (discovery of counting methods in Afro lang) has nothing to do with TRUTH (I will use afro language for counting as that is what I have been using -- this is what the culture is)
Hence Science didn't give origin to culture (truth), Culture is 'local' ways of performing activities --> hence this option is NOT valid.

(B) the conclusion that relativism leaves one with no clear notions of any one thing that is true.
My explanation: Can be interpreted from the para; HOLD ON.
Reason:
The last para:
The multiculturalists insist on seeing all perspectives as tainted by the perceiver’s particular point of view. Impartial knowledge, they argue, is not possible, because ideas are simply the expression of individual identity, or of the unspoken but inescapable assumptions that are inscribed in a culture or a language

we can interpret from these lines that there's no clear notion, everything is upto interpretation of the perceiver’s particular point of view. This is supported from the para so HOLD ON TO IT.

(C) the absurdity of claiming that knowledge of oppression is more valid than knowledge of scientific facts.
My explanation: Incorrect option.
Reason:
As I mentioned in my summary of para 5:
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.

So we can understand that 'knowledge of oppression' and 'scientific facts' are not compared here. This is irrelevant / incorrect option.

(D) the agreement among peoples of all cultures as to certain undeniable truths—e.g., when the sky is clear, day is warmer than night.
My explanation: Not relevant option.
Reason:
This is not relevant comparison. All other culture ppl here are not disagreeing with the undeniable truths. The other culture ppl prefer doing things in their way as that is how they have been brought up. The outcome still is achieved (counting numbers using Nubian numerals) -- but the method may vary.


(E) the fact that “truth” is not finitely definable and therefore that any discussion of impartial or objective truth is moot.
My explanation: incorrect option.
Reason:
Here, again the truth according to me refers to the local culture. As per the para, local cultures (as per para 4) can be defined as local methods / preference of doing certain things (basis of counting using Nubian numerals )

So the best option seems to be B.

--
please give kudos even if you disagree. Typing out such a detailed explanation deserves many kudos