Passage Summary: Kay has a specific rule for voting: she will only vote for someone she disagrees with if everyone else is even worse. In a three-way race with only one important issue, one candidate agrees with her while the other two do not.

Conclusion: It is unacceptable for Kay to vote for Legrand or Norton, but it is acceptable for her to vote for Medina.

Reasoning: Kay's rule permits voting for a candidate who disagrees with her only if she disagrees with every other candidate on even more issues; since Medina shares her opinion on the only important issue, she has zero disagreements with Medina, making any disagreement with others a disqualifier.

Analysis: This is a classic application of a conditional rule to a specific set of facts. To determine if a vote is 'acceptable,' we must compare the number of disagreements across all candidates. Since Medina has zero disagreements and the others have one, the 'more such issues' threshold can never be met for Legrand or Norton. Look for an answer choice that correctly identifies that voting for the candidates who disagree with her is prohibited by her own logic.