PrepTest 137, Section 2, Question 9
To use the pool at City Gym, one(22 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(6 more words not shown)
- Amistakes a policy(12 more words not shown)
- Btreats a statement(24 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes that one(18 more words not shown)
- Dconcludes that a(20 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Sarah could have the membership and never go near the pool.
Maybe she uses the treadmills or lifts weights. Maybe she joined for the tanning facilities or the daycare for her child. Any of those possibilities would fit the fact that she's a member without making her an occasional swimmer.
What we’re looking for
The rule says membership is required to use the pool. It doesn't say membership forces you to use it. The argument treats meeting that requirement as enough to establish actual use. That's the mistake we need the flaw answer to describe.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that exceptions are made to the membership policy, and we don't need an exception to challenge this argument. Sarah can follow the policy perfectly while choosing not to swim. The issue is what membership establishes, not how strictly the gym enforces its rule.
- BCorrect
Translate the abstract wording into Sarah's situation. The statement ‘Sarah has a membership’ must be true if the conclusion ‘Sarah uses the pool’ is true: the gym requires membership for pool use.
But having that membership doesn't ensure she uses the pool. She could meet the requirement and use only the treadmills. B describes exactly that jump from something she needs in order to swim to something supposedly proving that she does swim.
- C
The argument doesn't present two alternatives and overlook a third. For example, it doesn't say Sarah must either swim or lift weights while ignoring the treadmills. Its mistake is treating membership as enough to establish pool use, not wrongly limiting a list of activities.
- D
This would describe a different argument: most gym members use the pool, Sarah is a member, so Sarah uses the pool. We were never told that most members swim. Our premise instead gives a requirement that pool users must meet. A rule about eligibility isn't a statement about what most members actually do.
- E
The conclusion wasn't already given as a premise. ‘Sarah uses the pool, so Sarah uses the pool’ would simply repeat itself. Here we start with a membership rule and Sarah's membership, then add the unsupported claim that she swims. That is a faulty step, but it isn't merely repeating an earlier claim.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.