Answer:
Among the options given on the question the correct answer is option A.
She says the opposite of what she really wants.
Explanation: In story 'Rules of the Game' by Amy tan shows how a girl named Waverly uses the art of invisible power to make her way in the life. Her used to control Waverly by using 'the art of invisible strength'. Her mother also taught her the use of this technique.Basically this technique is the manipulating people by silence, humility and presumed obedience to attain the goal what an individual wants.
However, Waverly improved to play chess by practicing and started to play with the old men in the park in most of her leisure time. Once a man proposed her participate in the local chess tournaments but her mother did not wanted that.
So, Waverly used the art of invisible strength by being agree with her mother. She said to her mother that she also doesn't want to participate in the tournament. If she loses it will be a shame.
Actually she was saying opposite of what she wants.
Using this technique she made her way and took permission from her mother to participate in the local chase tournament.
I would say that Steinbeck was trying to highlight how important it is to work towards solutions to social problems which will positively impact not just YOU or YOUR family, but the greater good. A lot of the symbols in the book have far reaching, metaphoric allusions - like the flood, or the parallels between the Joads and the Israelites - that support that whole Bible-esque "we're in this together, so we'd better do the right thing" theme. There are lots of others that come to mind, but I think you can sum it up with saying that the book has a very obvious and strong social message.
That's of course purely from a philosophical point. From a practical point, he may have been trying to simply bring attention to the plight of the real "Okies" which was largely undocumented at that time.
Whatever the case, It makes for a very interesting narrative even if it has been proven not to be historically authentic in too many ways. I think you can easily infer that Steinbeck meant for it to be taken very literally and "read in to".
