Passage Summary: Kay has a specific rule: she won't vote for someone she disagrees with unless the alternatives are even worse. In this election, she has one deal-breaker issue. Medina is on her side, but Legrand and Norton are not.

Reasoning: Kay only votes for a candidate she disagrees with on an important issue if she disagrees with every other candidate on even more issues. In the current three-person race, there is one important issue; Kay agrees with Medina and disagrees with Legrand and Norton.

Analysis: We must apply Kay's rigid logic to the facts provided. Since Kay disagrees with Legrand on her only important issue (1 issue), she can only vote for Legrand if she disagrees with Medina and Norton on *more* than one issue. However, she only disagrees with Medina on zero issues. Because 1 is not greater than 0, it is 'unacceptable' for her to vote for Legrand. The same logic applies to Norton. Therefore, the only candidate she could possibly vote for under her principle is Medina. Look for an answer that reflects that voting for Legrand or Norton is prohibited by her rules.