Flaw : just because X is there . Y has to be true. It maybe that Z is true because of X
(A) mistakes a policy that is strictly enforced for a policy to which exceptions are made . No exception to a policy is stated in the argument.
(B) treats a sentence whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true . Very huge statement . Lets hold and read later
(C) presumes that one or the other of two alternatives must be the case without establishing that no other alternative is possible . What two alternatives? If alternatives are just swimming and swimming , there could be plenty other rasons to join the gym.
(D) concludes that a person has a certain attribute simply because that person belongs to a group most of whose members have that attribute Out !! Nothing related to grop , we are just talking about one person.
(E) draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion . No restatement . Its drawing an inference atually, which is a flawed inference. Out !
At this moment

you go to B and break it
(B) treats a sentence whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true .
A sentence (swimming is available at gym) is a necessary condition , not a sufficient condition.
it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true . Bang on the flaw is that the argument takes
the sentence to be sufficient condition, however its a necessary condition and that is the flaw.
This option was really complex . So POE works the best, i guess !!