Whenever she considers voting in an election to select one candidate for a position and there is at least one issue important to her, Kay uses the following principle in choosing which course of action to take: it is acceptable for me to vote for a candidate whose opinions differ from mine on at least one issue important to me whenever I disagree with each of the other candidates on even more such issues; it is otherwise unacceptable to vote for that candidate.
Statements
conditional (whenever - Left side, sufficient)
Disagree w/ other acceptable to vote for candidates on greater → candidate X, even if # of important issues disagree w/ X on one or more important issues
conditional (otherwise - negate previous trigger)
don't disagree w/ other unacceptable to vote candidates on greater → for candidate X, if # of important issues disagree w/ X on one or more important issues
In upcoming election, there is only one important issue to Kay, and only Medina (of the three candidates) shares her opinion.
Evaluate
For this question stem, it doesn't seem like they'll be testing the Legrand / Medina / Norton thing, since the question stem seems to be aimed at any election, not this upcoming election.
She's not allowed to vote for people who don't share her view on an important issue, unless the other candidates mismatch with her view on a greater number of important issues.
That would have some weird implications like,
Goal
It's very hard to predict where this one could be going. Look for anything derivable from the logic of her voting rules.