Top Law Schools

Why is (c) wrong? I see on MLR forum they say that it's a negation, but I read the stimulus as such

CD (civil disobedience) self interests + ~concern for others----->>>> -justified (first premise)

Contrapositive:justified ------>>>> -self interest or concern for others.

I thought (c) describes the Contrapositive of the 1st premise?

Can somebody help me out with this one, I'm really confused,

Well gosh dang it, it's the second premise that's being tested on this answer isn't it???

I see what you mean when you say that (C) describes the contrapositive of the 1st. premise. (C) claims that G acted out of concern for others and claims that G was justified. These two claims are perfectly compatible with the contrapositive of the 1st. premise. But the justification of G’s act does not follow from the fact that she acted out of concern for others. So (C)’s argument is fallacious. The argument goes like this:
Premise (1) (contrapositive of 1st principle) Justified > not done out of self interest alone OR done out of a concern for others
Premise (2) (from answer choice (C) G acted out of concern for others.
Conclusion: G’s act was justified.
P > Q or R
R
Therefore P

This is very easy mistake to make, which is why the LSAC puts it on the LSAT.