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 )
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
Since L and N disagree with Kay's position on the important issue, and since there's no way for them to agree with Kay on other important issues (because there ARE no other important issues to Kay), that means it's unacceptable for K to vote for them.
We don't technically have a way to prove that it's acceptable for Kay to vote for M, because the rule provided for "acceptable" involves a trigger that doesn't apply to M.
The trigger talks about a candidate whose opinions differ on at least one important issue. There's only one important issue to Kay, and M's opinions do not differ. So we can't really apply this rule to M, even though our common sense would tell us it seems acceptable for her to vote for M
Goal
Look for an answer that reflects that it is unacceptable to vote for L and N, that it's potentially acceptable to vote for M, or both.