GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 1): More gym memberships are bought in

If we see the options closely, all the options are pointing to support that the people of Schwartz should be or are doing frequent exercise. I see only option E who actually point that all though people buy more gym membership, but the duration is still less that Talsberg

Statement: More gym membership is bought in S rather than T
Conclusion: Citizens of S exercise more frequently than do the citizens of T
-> Assumption: buy more gym membership = exercise more

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT: -> need to find conclusion strengthen

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does.
-> eliminate. This only explains the discrepancy of gym membership, not the conclusion
B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there.
-> eliminate. Same case as A. It does not enhance the strength of conclusion
C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg.
-> eliminate. Same case as A. It does not enhance the strength of conclusion
D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg.
-> eliminate. This only account for the discrepancy of gym membership between 2 countries. It does not provide any support for the conclusion of exercise frequency.
E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg.
-> this answer support the conclusion relating to exercise.

Thus, the answer is E

A, B, D, and E each weaken the conclusion -- i.e. provides an alternative reason as to why memberships levels are not definitively reflective of exercise rates, so provided either of the aforementioned answers are true, they would weaken the conclusion

C however, doesn't seem to necessarily weaken or strengthen; appears to be a statement of fact. However, it could also be stated that the average price being higher shouldn't deter working out. we are also not given any metrics or count info on how much higher; it could be marginally above the average, and therefore shouldn't influence membership enrollment, and thus the people of Talsberg are simply more lazy than Schwartz.

Answer: C

this one is tricky though, so not sure!

We are given an argument and asked to identify the statement that does NOT weaken the conclusion — in other words, the one that either strengthens it or is irrelevant.

⸻

Argument Summary:

Premise:
More gym memberships are bought in Schwartz than in Talsberg.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently than those in Talsberg.

This is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation — the assumption is that more gym memberships means more actual exercise.

⸻

Let’s evaluate each option:

⸻

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does.
• Weakens.
More people could explain why there are more memberships, without implying higher exercise frequency per person.

✅ Weakens.

⸻

B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there.
• Weakens.
This suggests that some of the memberships counted in Schwartz are actually used by Talsberg citizens, not Schwartz residents.

✅ Weakens.

⸻

C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg.
• Weakens.
Lower cost could lead to more purchases without indicating more actual usage or frequency of exercise.

✅ Weakens.

⸻

D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg.
• Weakens.
Talsberg citizens may not need to buy memberships to exercise frequently.

✅ Weakens.

⸻

E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg.
• This directly contradicts the conclusion! If Schwartz citizens have more memberships but exercise less, the conclusion falls apart.

✅ Weakens.

⸻

Wait — we’re supposed to pick the one that does NOT weaken the conclusion.

Let’s reassess.

All 5 answer choices weaken the conclusion to some extent — but the one that weakens it the least is:

⸻

✅ Correct Answer: C.

“The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than in Talsberg.”

This could explain why more memberships are bought in Schwartz, but it doesn’t directly challenge whether they exercise more frequently. It only hints at why more memberships might be sold.

So it’s the least weakening — and thus the correct answer to the EXCEPT question.

⸻

✅ Final Answer: C.

E - The conclusion is about frequency of exercise, not duration or intensity. It's possible for someone to exercise more frequently (e.g., more days per week) but spend less total time per week if their sessions are shorter.

What underlying situation do we have here?
1. More Memberships in Schwartz that in Talsberg

What do we conclude?
People in Schwartz exercise more.

What do that imply?
-> The relation of people that go to the Gym to people that live there must be the same/In favour of Schwartz.
-> There are no "Cross-Relations", where people of the one village have a membership in the other one.

A) Does not answer anything about the relation of population and memberships. -> Not sufficient
B) Answer the question of the Cross-Relation -> keep
C) Not relevant
D) Not relevant
E) Not relevant

-> Therefore i can conclude, that its B)

Conclusion : Schwartz has more gym memberships, so its citizens must exercise more than Talsberg's.

Let's look at the option to find the one that does NOT weaken this conclusion.

A. Schwartz has more people. More memberships could just mean more people, not more exercise per person. Weakens
B. Many Talsberg citizens have memberships in Schwartz. Schwartz's numbers include outsiders. Weakens
C. Gym memberships are cheaper in Schwartz. People might join just because it's a good deal. Weakens
D. Talsberg has a free community gym. so people exercise without buying memberships. Weakens
E. Schwartz citizens spend less time per gym visit. This is about time, not frequency. They could still exercise more often. Does not weaken

Answer: E

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does.

This explains why the Schwartz town has more membership than Talsberg. Weakens

B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there.

It tells us that Schwartz has more memberships but many of those belong to Talsberg residents. So more gym memberships doesn't mean equal exercise rates. Weakens.

C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg.

This option provides a valid reason why more people sign up in Schwartz even if they don’t actually use the gym more often. Weakens.

D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg.

This choice opens up a possibility that Talsberg folks might be exercising more even without buying gym memberships. Weakens.

E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg.

This choices gives evidence about total time, not visit count. Therefore, it does not contradict the conclusion that Schwartz citizens exercise more frequently. Correct

Option E

More gym memberships are bought in the town of Schwartz than in the town of Talsberg. Therefore, the citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently than do the citizens of Talsberg.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

Premise: more gym memberships bought in Schwartz than in Talsberg
Conclusion: therefore, the citizens of S exercise more frequently than do the citiznes of T
=> to weaken this conclusion, the inference that more memberships = more frequent exercises should be tackled.

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does. => Weakens; more memberships could be due to more people, not by frequency
B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there. => Weakens; People in T may be more "frequently" exercising at the gym in S
C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg. => Mildly weakens; simply suggest there may be more people buy memberships because they are cheaper, but no direct relevance to how often people in S go to the gym
D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg. => Weakens; People in T may be more "frequently" exercising at the free gym
E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg. => Weaken; People in S spend "less time" at the gym, directly undermining the conclusion that they "exercise more frequently"

Answer: C

The options A, B, C, D clearly weaken the conclusion under reasonable interpretation.

Therefore, E is the answer because it is the only one that can be true while the conclusion stating that the citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently is also true, depending on the interpretation of "frequently."

C.

A- This weakens the argument because it shows that population count could factor into gym membership count. So we can not tell how much one populus exercises more than the other.
B- This weakens the argument because it shows that Talsberg population count will be factoring into the Schwatz gym count. This causes the exercising of Talsberg to factor into the Schwartz populus.
C- Price does not factor into how many gym memberships are sold or populs count
D- Since we are counting paid for memberships most of the Talsberg population could be doing free memberships and not being counted. So we can not tell how much one populus exercises more than the other.
E- Since we want to know who exercies more even if less people go to the gym in Talsberg they could be spending more time then those of Schwatz. This would make the population of Talsberg exereice more on average even if they have less memberships.

Thus C

Answer D

All the other statements have some sort of comparison between the two cities, which weaken the argument.

More gym memberships are bought in the town of Schwartz than in the town of Talsberg. Therefore, the citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently than do the citizens of Talsberg.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion above EXCEPT:

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does. - Nothing here implies anything about gyms
B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there. -Directly weakens argument
C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg. - Cheaper gym so more people can purchase it
D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg. - No reason to purchase it, because it is free
E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg. - Contradicts the above

Premise: More gym memberships are bought in Schwartz than in Talsberg.
Conclusion: Therefore, the citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently than do the citizens of Talsberg.

A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does.
If Schwartz has more people, then having more gym memberships might just be a function of having more people, not necessarily that each person exercises more. Weakens the conclusion.

B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there.
This means that many gym memberships in Schwartz are actually held by people from Talsberg. So, the higher number in Schwartz might be due to Talsberg citizens, not Schwartz citizens. Weakens the conclusion.

C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg.
Lower prices could mean more memberships are bought and also used if they're affordable, so maybe more exercise. But the argument is that more memberships imply more exercise, and this gives a reason for more memberships (lower price), but doesn't necessarily say they're used less. So it doesn't weaken the link between memberships and exercise, it just explains why there are more memberships. CORRECT

D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg.
If Talsberg has a free gym, many citizens might use that instead of buying memberships. So, even if they exercise a lot, they might not show up in the membership counts. Weakens the conclusion.

E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg.
This directly compares the exercise frequency between the two towns. If Schwartz citizens spend less time at the gym on average, then even if they have more memberships, they might not be exercising more frequently. Weakens the conclusion.

IMO C

Letter E. The text talks about frequency, which is different from the time spent on each visit.

Option C states that gym membership is cheaper in Schwartz, but we know from the premise that the number of memberships is higher in Schwartz. So this option doesn't weaken the conclusion; citizens of Schwartz could still be going to the gym more often.

Answer: C

Conclusion:

Weakening:
To weaken this argument, we need to cast doubt on the claim that "citizens of Schwartz exercise more frequently".
One way is to find a 3rd alternative/cause that explains why:
Another way is to attack the assumptions underlying this argument. Here are a few:
(1) The populations of Schwartz and Talsberg are equal or at least comparable.
(2) Paid gym memberships are a valid proxy for exercise (and no other alternative is a significantly better indicator of exercise).
(3) Paid gym memberships are a valid proxy for exercise frequency (people who pay for a gym membership actually use it for exercise, and workout durations per membership are comparable both within each town and across the two towns).
(4) There is no significant overlap or cross-city purchasing of gym memberships between the two towns (memberships bought in town X are by citizens of town X)

Answer Choices:
A. Schwartz has a larger population than Talsberg does.
Option A weakens the conclusion by playing on the classic per capita notion. Because we do not know the total populations of Schwartz and Talsberg, we cannot affirm that citizens exercise more (on average), as we do not know the average exercise rates.
Let's find a counterexample: if the total population of S is 100 and T is 20, but the number of gym memberships bought is 20 for S and 10 for T, then per capita ratio of exercising is: S = 20/100 = 1/5 = 20% vs. T = 10/20 = 1/2 = 50%. In this case, we cannot affirm that Schwartz citizens exercise more frequently.

B. Most citizens of Talsberg work in Schwartz and have memberships in gyms there.
That is a strong weakening option because it directly challenges the assumption that the gym memberships bought in Schwartz are from Schwartz citizens. Because option B negates this assumption, we cannot know for certain which bought gym memberships in Schwartz are by S citizens and which are by T citizens.
Let's find a counterexample: If 99.9% of the gym memberships bought in Schwartz are by Talsberg citizens who work there, then we cannot affirm that Schwartz citizens exercise more frequently.

C. The average price of a gym membership is lower in Schwartz than it is in Talsberg.
If more memberships are bought in Schwartz than in Talsberg, one possible explanation is the lower average price of a gym membership. However, it does not challenge the conclusion. It only adds an explanation to the premise. This is a common misdirection answer.

D. A large, free community gym open to all is available to the citizens of Talsberg.
That is a strong 3rd-alternative loophole. Does exercising more frequently necessarily require citizens to have a paid gym membership? This again dismantles an underlying assumption (that paid gym membership is required for exercise), and therefore provides grounds for a counterexample.
Let's find a counterexample: If 99% of Talsberg citizens exercise in the free community gym, and only 1% have paid gym memberships, then effectively 100% of Talsberg would be exercising. In this case, we cannot affirm that Schwartz citizens exercise more frequently.

E. The average citizen of Schwartz spends less time at the gym per week than does the average citizen of Talsberg.
Option E attacks the assumption that each gym membership is comparable to another in terms of exercise frequency and duration.
Let's find a counterexample: If the average citizen of Schwartz spends only 1h per week at the gym while the average citizen of Talsberg spends 5h per week, then, we cannot affirm that Schwartz citizens exercise more frequently.