An assumption, but might this be for an assignment? Or is it just for something to do?
So, as I understand it, which, to be fair, is not a lot, Optimality Theory basically states "here is some input A, here are some constraints B and their rankings C in language D, thus these are the mostly likely outcomes E given B and C".
So, for example, let's say you have an "input" /plank/. You can throw that at any language you want, and, according to OT, there'll be some likely outcome based on whatever constraints the language has in its phonology, and how it "ranks" those constraints.
The constraints, as they're described, are universal, i.e. they apply to all languages, but they are ranked differently. So, for example, you could have the following constraints:
1) "coda nasals are not deleted" (which I think is a faithfulness constraint since it's retaining something of the original input)
2) "clusters of nasals and plosives reduce to the plosive" (which is a markedness constraint since it actually makes a change to the input)
3) "clusters not between two vowels are broken up by vowels" (another markedness constraint, since it's now adding to the word).
4) "clusters after vowels are retained" (a faithfulness constraint)
These may be ranked in 3 languages as follows, for example:
Language A: 1 > 4 > 2 > 3
Language B: 2 > 1 > 3 > 4
Language C: 1 > 3 > 4 > 2
Which would yield the following outputs:
Language A: [palank] (the coda nasal is retained, constraint 2 doesn't apply because it violates 1, clusters after the vowel are retained, so 3 only applies to the initial cluster)
Language B: [palak] (the coda nasal is dropped, so 1 doesn't apply, the initial cluster is broken up (3 would apply to the final cluster, but this was reduced according to 2), and rule 4 can't apply because it violates 3)
Language C: [palanak] (the coda nasal is retained, but then both clusters are broken up according to 4, which 3 violates to it doesn't apply, and since the cluster is broken up anyway, 2 no long applies).
The output, given any input, is the one that then conforms most closely to the constraints the language places on itself in the order that they are ranked. So, for example, you couldn't have [palak] in Language B, because there's a constraint against nasal+plosive clusters, and while you
could have [palak] in Language A, it violates its own constraints on deleting certain parts of the input.
Someone else will likely have a much better understanding of this than I do, and honestly that person is likely to be your teacher/lecturer/professor/tutor/whatever, so I'd suspect they're actually the best person to ask. There's no harm in asking for help, especially from the person whose career is built around helping people to learn
It shows that you understand the gaps in your knowledge, and that you're willing to actively fill those gaps, and getting some more time with an educator isn't always a bad thing. It might help build a stronger relationship, which could aid you in the long run.