answer - E

subjects ate all of their food for the day within six hours of waking up.
The conclusion fails to include the timing (six hours of waking up).
"eating all of one's food within a relatively short period of time causes the body to burn more calories"
Instead it says 'short period of time' which could be anytime during the day.
Hence it is assumed here that if subjects ate all of their food for the day in any of a 6 hour slot, the results would have been same.
Option E says the same in other words. It bridges the gap between fact and conclusion.

Option D - why wrong
People eating on an intermittent-fasting protocol will not feel substantially hungrier than those who space out their meals more regularly.
Whether the subjects felt substantially hungrier or not is out of scope.
It is already stated that they followed a routine which resulted in weight loss. And the conclusion states that if somebody follows similar routine, same result will happen. Statement D, in no sense bridges the gap between FACT and CONCLUSION.

This problem is a really good example of why it is so important to look for the missing kinks between the premisses and the conclusion. The study discusses certain results when participants ate all their food within 6 hours of waking up. However, the conclusion states that "eating all of one's food within a relatively short period of time causes the body to burn more calories." However, it fails to take into account the part that these subjects not only ate all their food in a relatively short period of time, but also did so within six hours of waking up. Looking for these subtle difference will help you immensely with assumption problems.

I applaud this question for pointing to a very important issue. And I am talking about the subject matter. A recent New York Times article pointed out the importance of not eating anything within 3 hours of your bedtime. It turns out that eating late is a major cause of insomnia, allergies, nasal problems, heart burn, and many other serious conditions.

I personally only eat within a nine hour window. typically from 9AM to 6PM. Since making this change I have lost weight and feel much better and more energetic. And here is the funny part, I feel LESS hungry than I did before. The fact is that one of the major causes of hunger is eating. Particularly eating carbohydrates. You know how people eat a bunch of bread or rice or something and then are hungry 2 hours later? Well the reason for that is not, as people suspect, that you took in too few calories. It is that eating those simple carbohydrates actually makes the body hungry. There is a reason that things on the restaurant menu are called "appetizers" they really do stimulate the appetite.

Anyway, here is a link to the New York Times article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opini ... .html?_r=0


As for this assumption question the correct answer needs to specifically link the evidence to the conclusion. In this case the evidence concerns people who happen to consume their calories in the first six hours of the day. There are two possibilities here. Either it is good to eat early in the day, or else eating your calories in one short period and "fasting" the rest of the day is the reason for the improvement.

The argument chooses the short period of time as the cause and you then need to rule out the other possible cause. Choice E does this.

And choice E is correct. It is not actually necessary to eat first thing in the morning. Many people choose a very successful 11AM to 7PM window of eating. Most people will find that if they do not eat late at night they do not wake up actually hungry but can exercise in the morning and do a few things and then eat.