broall wrote:
One of the requirements for admission to the Lunnville Roller Skating Club is a high degree of skill in roller skating. The club president has expressed concern that the club may have discriminated against qualified women in its admissions this year. Yet half of the applicants admitted to the club this year were women. This proves that there was no discrimination against qualified women applicants in the club’s admissions this year.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the conclusion of the argument depends?
(A) Only a few applicants were found to be qualified and were admitted to the club this year.
(B) No more than half of all the roller skaters in Lunnville are women.
(C) No more than half of all the roller skaters in Lunnville are men.
(D) This year no more than half of the applicants who met all the qualifications for admission to the club were women.
(E) This year no more than half of the members of the club’s committee that makes decisions about applicants’ qualifications were men.
Source: LSAT
The only defense that the argument has is that half of the applicants admitted to the club this year were women. What if >50% of the women applicants deserved admission ?
Hence, the argument assumes ( Defender type ) that no more than half of the applicants who met all the qualifications for admission to the club were women. Answer : D
Option A does not provide us with specific information about women applicants
Option B and C talks about a very large set of ALL the roller skaters in Lunnville. The argument is concerned about only the club.
Option E talks about people who make decision and is therefore out of scope.