Respuesta :
Remark
It is a misclassifications to call these stories parables. They are 17 tales all of which point to some sort of tragic ending, usually of someone rich who suddenly became poor and even destitute and imprisoned. Jesus told parables which were meant to teach. They were entertaining, but one drew a guide for living from each tale he told.
The monk told these stories which were quite repetitive in nature repeating the same conclusions from each tale which ended all in the same way.
These stories come from all over the place and refer to all sorts of historical figures. Some of them were Satan, Adam, Sampson (from the Old Testament) to Ugalino who fascinated anyone living in Chaucer's time. Count Ugalino was imprisoned and on his way to death by starvation, he ate one of his three sons. Pretty grim stuff, wouldn't you say?
I am giving you all this background so that you can begin to understand which choice may fit.
Maybe B might have been true for others who used parables; it was not true of Chaucer. His use of stories as told by the the monk were all the same and they defined tragedy.
A also might be true. There is always Biblical Parables that were (probably) told over and over again in church. But they do not resemble Chaucer's parables.
C might also be true, but these "fables" were not animal centered. They had characters in them who were real and recognizable at the time.
D could also be true.
So Three of the answers are possible. The answer is so dependent on what your notes say. For myself though none are completely correct, I would pick A.
Parables were commonplace in Chaucer's time, and audiences would have found them familiar- apex
