Read these lines: "You share a dish of chicken curry and head off to your next class. A few hours later, you feel nauseous and become ill. Although your friend is fine and you determine that you have intestinal flu (the food is not the culprit), you've developed a taste aversion; the next time you are at a restaurant and someone orders curry, you immediately feel ill." What can be inferred about the reaction at the restaurant?

1. The quoted lines say you determined you had intestinal flu, so you know the food is not the culprit. 2. They then say that at the restaurant you immediately feel ill anyway when someone orders curry. 3. Feeling ill while knowing the curry was innocent means the reaction continues despite that knowledge, option D. 4. Option A sets the opposite trap: the quoted lines show the reaction firing after the flu diagnosis, not fading because of it. 5. Option B fails because the illness feeling arrives when someone else merely orders curry, before any tasting. 6. Option C contradicts the quoted lines, which state outright that the food was not what made you sick. _Source: OpenStax Psychology 1e (CC BY 4.0), Ch 6 "Learning", section 6.2 Classical Conditioning_