<p>We study the aggregation of individuals’ beliefs into their collective judgment on a certain proposition, called the <i>conclusion</i>, which is logically related to other preliminary propositions. While the literature has highlighted the crucial dependency of voting outcomes on the selection of an <i>agenda</i>—i.e., the set of propositions voted on—the structure of this dependency is not well understood. We introduce two novel premise-based rules, defined through the <i>conjunctive normal form</i> and <i>disjunctive normal form</i> of the conclusion. Our theorem shows that for any profile of voters’ beliefs, these rules respectively yield the highest and lowest voting outcomes, with respect to a given total order over the set of truth values, within the class of all premise-based rules. This result clarifies the extent to which a voting outcome can be manipulated through the selection of an agenda.</p>