Help, Answer doesn't make sense with stem

I think this might help you because I had the same question. its a comment by Victoria on a previous post: Hi @Reina and @ahambsch16, The political theorist concludes that "where the police are well paid, there will be a good legal system." PWP --> GLS What evidence do they use to support this? They only have one premise/principle: "where the police are not well paid, there cannot be a good legal system." Not PWP --> Not GLS GLS --> PWP This question is definitely a little bit confusing in terms of the wording it uses. Essentially, answer choice (D) is correct because the premise does not support the conclusion. The political theorist concludes that PWP is sufficient, but the principle that they cite in support of this tells us that PWP is necessary. In this way, the argument fails to provide us with any evidence to support its conclusion (i.e. that PWP is sufficient). While the conclusion may state that PWP is sufficient, the argument itself is missing the information to support this conclusion. The political theorist cites one principle and then uses an illegal negation/reversal to draw its conclusion. (It can be either a negation or a reversal depending on whether you use the contrapositive or not). Negation P: Not PWP --> Not GLS C: PWP --> GLS Reversal P: GLS --> PWP C: PWP --> GLS Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

so basically, their evidence fails to establish what it is concluding