Confusion over premise and Conclusion

[rockinfeet]

While reading argument mentioned below , i was confused over premise and conclusion.

Most doctors recommend consuming alcohol only in moderation,
since the excessive intake of alcohol has been linked to several
diseases of the liver. Drinking alcohol is more dangerous for the liver,however, than abstaining from alcohol entirely.Last year,more nondrinkers than drinkers were diagonised with liver failure

My understanding:
Premise:Excessive intake of alcohol has been linked to several
diseases of the liver
Conclusion:Most doctors recommend consuming alcohol only in moderation
Premise:Drinking alcohol is more dangerous for the liver,however, than abstaining from alcohol entirely
Premise:Last year,more nondrinkers than drinkers were diagnosed with liver failure

I assumed that all the premise leads to conclusion that alcohol should be consumed in moderation.


As per book :
Counter premise:]Most doctors recommend consuming alcohol only in moderation,since the excessive intake of alcohol has been linked to several diseases of the liver
Conclusion:Drinking alcohol is more dangerous for the liver,however, than abstaining from alcohol entirely
Premise:Last year,more nondrinkers than drinkers were diagnosed with liver failure

Can anybody explain where i am doing mistake in understanding the argument?

[jlucero]

I'd say the biggest issue is that you're trying to conclude a fact. If the argument says that doctors recommend something, your job is not to prove or disprove that doctors say this. Similarly, the third sentence is factual- last year, something happened. So the only opinion, and therefore, the only possible conclusion, is the second sentence.

Conclusion: drinking is worse than not drinking
Premise (why is this true?): more drinkers get liver disease

And now you have to think about how that first sentence fits into the conclusion- if doctors are saying you should drink alcohol in moderation, that goes counter to what the conclusion is trying to establish

Counterpoint: doctors recommend drinking alcohol only in moderation

There's a bit of a gray area here though, as the doctors point doesn't directly refute the conclusion. The doctor is more comparing drinking heavily vs drinking in moderation. The reason it is listed as a counterpoint (I assume... where/what page did you find this argument?) is because drinking at all seems to go agains the main conclusion here.