#23 - Whenever she considers voting in an election to select

[Adam Tyson]

The full explanation is usually found at the top of a thread in this very Forum (that is, as the very first post overall), astroworld. If there isn't one there it is because we haven't written one yet (and we are working on getting full explanations done for every question, but that takes a lot of time and effort.)

If only Medina shares Kay's opinion, then the others do NOT share that opinion. They may not disagree - they may have no opinion at all - but they don't have the same opinion that she has, and that is enough to trigger the rule. The only way she could vote for Legrand or Norton, who differ from her on an important issue (not necessarily disagree - differ, which includes her having an opinion and them not having one) is if the other two disagree with her on more issues. But there is only one issue that she cares about, and Medina agrees with her on it, so there is no way that Medina can differ with her on more issues than the others. She cannot vote for the others - that is unacceptable.

So, while we do not know what the other two actually think about the issue at hand, we know that under her rules she could never vote for them because they differ on the only important issue, and Medina does not differ on it. We don;t have to assume anything about their opinions, because we already know that they don't share Kay's opinion, and that is enough of a difference.

[flowskiferda]

I got this right, but I was really hung up on the "only" part of answer choice B. Who is to say that ONLY voting for those two people would be unacceptable. What about not voting at all, or writing in the name of another person? We have no clue.
Are we supposed to assume that "unacceptable" is only applied to the realm of voting for one of these three candidates, and any other action Kay takes is not under evaluation? If so, how do we know we are allowed to make such an assumption?
Thanks!

[flowskiferda]

I got this right, but I was really hung up on the "only" part of answer choice B. Who is to say that ONLY voting for those two people would be unacceptable. What about not voting at all, or writing in the name of another person? We have no clue.
Are we supposed to assume that "unacceptable" is only applied to the realm of voting for one of these three candidates, and any other action Kay takes is not under evaluation? If so, how do we know we are allowed to make such an assumption?
Thanks!

Nevermind--I figured it out. I missed that the principle only applied to "those whose opinions differ" meaning that anything that doesn't meet such a qualification is out of the principle's scope.

[flowskiferda]

Actually, after reviewing this question again, I really am hung up on the "only" part of the right answer. The only way I can see it working is if we assume that "unacceptable" is only applied to the realm of voting for one of these three candidates, and any other action Kay takes is not under evaluation. But this assumption seems to be more than the "common-sense assumptions" that we are allowed to make on the LSAT.
Perhaps if the stimulus stated that it was the ONLY principle she uses, then the answer choice would work....but without such info we have no clue if there are other principles that she adheres to that, for example, say that not voting at all is also unacceptable.

[Adam Tyson]

I also had that concern for a moment, flowskiferda, but then I took a closer look at the question stem, which is only about what is true "According to the principle stated in the passage." When looked at through that very narrow lens, it doesn't matter if there are other things that might be unreasonable (like not voting) for other reasons; the principle in the passage does NOT make any other choice either acceptable or unacceptable! We need an answer that is based exclusively on that principle, and under that principle (and not taking into account any other possible principles), the only way she could do something unacceptable would be to vote for Legrand or Norton. That's the only answer choice that follows directly from the principle in the passage.

Yes, Kay, might have some other principle that she follows that forbids her from abstaining, but that would be a different principle and would not be "according to the principle stated in the passage."