"always" in conditional logic

[JohnK403]

I was reading Manhattan Prep Logical Reasoning and there is a flaw that I don't understand.

Argument:
"People who take an LSAT course always improve their ability to do Logic Games. Clearly, Jose took an LSAT course. After all, his ability to do Logic Games has improved tremendously."

Answer:
"interprets a factor that is guaranteed to produce a certain result as one required to produce that result."

Answer Explanation:
"As soon as you saw 'always', you should have been ready for a conditional logic flaw(in this case, an illegal reversal). Look for this flaw in any argument that features a conditional keyword."

I got the correct answer by POE but couldn't understand why this is wrong. I understand the argument as follows:

(1) If people take LSAT course ,then their ability to do logic games improve.
(2) Jose took an LSAT course.
(3) Therefore, Jose's ability has improved.

This argument seems valid. However, the answer seems to indicate that the antecedent and consequent in (1) is reverse; but I don't get this.

Moreover, why does the answer explanation says that if we saw the word "always" we should be ready for a conditional logic? How does the word "always" work in the conditional logic?