A wise sage said, 'The hunger for knowledge is more difficult to remove than the hunger for food; therefore, one should stick to the food.' Which fallacy is committed in this argument?

The conclusion drawn has nothing to do with the premise offered.

The premise notes that the hunger for knowledge is harder to remove than the hunger for food.

From this the sage leaps to advising that one should stick to food.

Difficulty of satisfying a hunger says nothing about which pursuit one ought to choose.

Proving a point irrelevant to the intended conclusion is ignoratio elenchi, the irrelevant conclusion.