interested!

Would love to join

I could be wrong but what I inferred before hearing J.Y's explanation was that a high-selling restaurant could have been opened last year. Such a restaurant would not have had comparison data (because it's only been open for one year. ) and thus would not have been included in the figures that the accountant talks about (he uses two years of data). This question does seem more like a missing assumption though.

I agree that we should accept the answers as true so for E that means accepting that an increase in leisure time increases the tendency to act violently. But for me, if we stop there there is still a gap between increased leisure time, its tendency to increase violence, and watching TV. What does increased leisure time have to do with watching TV? You could be watching TV and doing other things. Well, I mistakenly bridged that gap by assuming that increased leisure time meant that you watch more TV and thus be more violent. That is why I believe that E requires an additional assumption. BTW thanks for responding to my comment - this engagement is so helpful

I thought the same way that you did: AC B requires an assumption and AC E requires an assumption. However try to think of it this way: for E to strengthen the argument, E has to be true AND so does the assumption that TV increases leisure time. Whereas B makes the assumption that TV is violent all on its own by mentioning violence on TV. Bottom line: AC B requires you to add 1 less assumption than E does.

Interested too!