Read the below case and select the best answer.

U$.$S$.$ v$.$ Lansdowne Swim Club $894$ F$\mathrm{.}2$d $83(3$rd Cir. $1990)$

The Lansdowne Swim Club $($LSC$)...$ a nonprofit corporation, is the only group swimming facility in the Borough of Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. Since its founding in $1957,$ LSC has granted $1400$ full family memberships. Every white applicant has been admitted, although two as limited members only. In that time, however, LSC has had only one nonwhite member.

The uncontroverted experiences of the following Lansdowne residents are significant. In $1976,$ the Allisons wrote to LSC requesting an application but LSC did not respond. Dr$.$ Allison is black; his three children are part$-$black. In $1977,$ the Allisons twice again wrote for an application but LSC did not respond. The following year, the Allisons repeated the procedure with similar results. In $1983,$ the Allisons filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership but were rejected.$$

The following year, the Ryans filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership. Nonetheless, they were rejected. Two of the Ryans$$ adopted children are black. The Ryans then complained to the media and picketed LSC$,$ joined by the Allisons. In $1986,$ the Iverys, who are black, filed a timely application and otherwise qualified for membership. Nonetheless, they were rejected $($as were the Ryans and Allisons who had again applied$).$

The United States alleges that LSC is a place of public accommodation $...$ which has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by refusing membership to blacks because of their race or color, in violation of $[$the Civil Rights Act$]....$

LSC$$s first argument is that it is a private club. Under $[$the Civil Rights Act$],$a private club or other establishments not in fact open to the public$$ is exempt from the statute... $.$ LSC has the burden of proving it is a private club... $.$ Although the statute does not define $$private club$,$ cases construing the provision do offer some guidance.$$

The district court distilled eight factors from the case law as relevant to this determination, three of which it found dispositive of LSC$$s public nature: the genuine selectivity of its membership process, its history, and the use of its facilities by nonmembers. LSC disputes these findings fore, even if membership approval were considered a fifth criterion, it would not make the process any more genuinely selective in this case.

The district court also found the yields of the membership process indicative of lack of selectivity. Since $1958,$ LSC has granted full memberships to at least $1,400$ families while denying them to only two non$-$black families. LSC contends that emphasizing the few instances of non$-$black applicant rejection $$misconstru$[$es$]$ the significance of selectivity. The crucial question should be whether the members exercised their right to be selective rather than the statistical results of the exercise of that right.$...$

$[$F$]$ormal membership requirements have little meaning when in fact the club does not follow a selective membership policy... $.$ We find the evidence of lack of selectivity convincing.

Both A & B

LSC would have won the case if the number of members it accepts are limited$,$ adopt

objective and truly selective criteria for membership, obtain adequate information about each applicant to make an informed decision about whether he or she qualifies, and measure each potential member against membership criteria.

$$The Club had an objective and truly selective criteria and measured each potential member against those criteria. The membership owns the property, and the Club$$s decisions were made by the Club$$s board of directors; hence, the Club was managed by its members. The use that nonmember residents made of the facilities was limited

Neither A or B