Q22 - Whenever she considers voting in

[clarafok]

hello,

can someone please explain to me why the answer is D? i also don't really get how conditional statements work in answers. the question says 'there is only one issue important to kay, and only medina shares her opinion on that issue'. but answer choice d says 'if she disagrees with each of the candidates on exactly three issues important to her, it is unacceptable for her to vote for any candidate in the election'. does that mean that i just ignore what's stated in the question about medina?

thanks!!!

[bbirdwell]

Yes, for this question you have to ignore the part about Medina. Why? Because the part about Medina is in regards to one specific upcoming election. The question, as written, asks what is true about any election.

So here is the rule:
Acceptable to vote for a candidate who disagrees with her on one or more issues IF she disagrees with the other candidates on even more issues. Otherwise, unacceptable.

It's not really necessary to turn this into a formal conditional statement, and could cost you time and headache to do so -- I'd advise just looking for a good match to the "story" told above.

If you really wanted to, it would look something like this:
1. If disagree with other candidates on more issues --> acceptable to vote for
2. If NOT disagree with other candidates on more issues --> not acceptable

(A) we have no information on what to do when there are not important issues
(B) could be false -- we need to know how many disagreements she has with each
(C) could be false. as long as she disagrees with everyone else on more than one issue, she could vote for that candidate.
(D) is true. If she disagrees with them on 3 issues each, then it is not acceptable for her to vote for any of them -- regarding rule #2 above, she does not disagree with any of them on more issues, therefore it's not acceptable to vote.
(E) could be false -- we need to know how many disagreements there are relative to the other candidates.

[clarafok]

thank you so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wj097]

(C) could be false. as long as she disagrees with everyone else on more than one issue, she could vote for that candidate.

hey bbirdwell, I had different reason for elimination: (B) doesn't tell anything about # of disagreements in regards to other candidates, it only states about agreement, can go either way.

Thx

[yhyuna]

Hi!

I understand why abce are wrong, but had a question about (d)

How do we know that each candidate is each paired with one of the three issues? Isn't it possible that each candidate can disagree with Kay on 2 or 3 issues, and between the all of the candidates there are three issues altogether? And if that's the case, then isn't it possible that three of the candidates can touch upon the same issue and, if one opinion is less disagreeable to Kay than the other candidates', then Kay can possibly vote for that candidate according to her rule?

It seems as if an assumption is required for (d) to be correct (i.e. a different candidate paired with one different issue each). Of course, it's possible that I'm just misinterpreting the grammar of answer choice (d). If it's the latter, further explanation on this would be great!

[agersh144]

But it doesn't say that their are only 3 importance issues to her so isn't this incomplete information? I'm confused, please explain...

[maryadkins]

(D) gives us a hypothetical (the word "if"): she disagrees with EVERY candidate on EXACTLY three issues. That means with each one independently she disagrees with him/her on 3 issues apiece. This is why it is not acceptable for her to vote for any of them--she does not disagree with any of them on more issues, therefore it's not acceptable to vote.

Sounds like you all were confused by the grammar. But it's not 3 issues TOTAL is the point. Hope this clarifies...

[charlotte.f.blatt.18]

(D) gives us a hypothetical (the word "if"): she disagrees with EVERY candidate on EXACTLY three issues. That means with each one independently she disagrees with him/her on 3 issues apiece. This is why it is not acceptable for her to vote for any of them--she does not disagree with any of them on more issues, therefore it's not acceptable to vote.

Sounds like you all were confused by the grammar. But it's not 3 issues TOTAL is the point. Hope this clarifies...

I am confused because this feels like incomplete information. We know how the candidates stand on these three issues so it wouldn't necessarily be okay for Kay to vote for them, but I don't know that we have enough info to say that she can't vote for any of them either because we only know about these three issues. Maybe I am thinking too much about this...but can someone please help explain? Thank you!

[andrewgong01]

(D) gives us a hypothetical (the word "if"): she disagrees with EVERY candidate on EXACTLY three issues. That means with each one independently she disagrees with him/her on 3 issues apiece. This is why it is not acceptable for her to vote for any of them--she does not disagree with any of them on more issues, therefore it's not acceptable to vote.

Sounds like you all were confused by the grammar. But it's not 3 issues TOTAL is the point. Hope this clarifies...

I am confused because this feels like incomplete information. We know how the candidates stand on these three issues so it wouldn't necessarily be okay for Kay to vote for them, but I don't know that we have enough info to say that she can't vote for any of them either because we only know about these three issues. Maybe I am thinking too much about this...but can someone please help explain? Thank you!

I think it is because the answer choice says "Exactly 3 issues". This means that the disagreement exists on 3 issues and only the 3 issues in questions since it says there are exactly 3 issues that are in contention with the person's view. This also means she disagrees with all candidates equally and not she disagrees with some candidates more than others (in terms of # of issues). We have to take this as true (from the answer choice) and not make any additional assumptions/ inferences beyond she disagrees with all them equally in terms of # of issues and the stimulus judges agreement/disagreement by # of issues.

In the original paragraph the trigger is that I can vote for a person I disagree with if I disagree more with other candidates; otherwise it is not acceptable to vote for any of the candidates.

Clearly, no matter whom Kay votes for she is going to be voting for someone she disagrees with on at least 1 issue. However, the stimulus said IF I disagree on more issues with other candidates, then can I vote for the person I disagree with. However, the sufficient condition has NOT been met here since she disagrees with all candidates equally (i.e. she does not disagree more with other candidates since she disagrees with all of them on 3 issues). The condition in the stimulus is met if she disagrees with say one politician on just 2 issues. Hence, the other "Trigger" in the stimulus has been met where if the condition fails it is unacceptable for Kay to cast a vote; hence the credited response "D" that it is unacceptable for KAy to cast a vote.