> This article explains why the correlation can't be explained by the given reason. The correlation exists, and the authors of the paper suggest a possible hyp

> This article explains why the correlation can't be explained by the given reason. The correlation exists, and the authors of the paper suggest a possible hypothesis that would explain it. This article explains nothing - just goes into flights of fancy describing possible outcomes based on the author's logic. If there were actually studies that show leniency vs. hunger that contradict original findings, that would explain why the correlation should not be explained by the given reason. In fact, the referenced study is a perfect example of a good science paper, and the scientific process in general. "Hey, we have a big anomaly here, here's a possible explanation. This explanation also suggests other further papers/studies that could explain the problem."