Howdy. Sorry for the delay. I didn't have my copy of the book yet.
on pg. 456,
you're just pointing out that the conclusion ALSO contains a term shift (from "irritable and hot tempered" to "more likely to fight"). you're correct, but that's beyond the purpose of this drill.
LSAT often introduces term shifts into their causal conclusions to give students another issue to get distracted by. In reality, these causal arguments almost always deal with the original causal assumption, not a language shift.
For example, if I said:
"People who eat a lot of chocolate are more likely than those who don't to have a lot of acne. Cleary, there's a price to be paid for consuming delicious treats."
Correlation: eating choc | lots of acne
Author's causal assumption: eating choc ----led to ---> lots of acne
Term shifts: "Chocolate = delicious treat", and "acne = a price to be paid"
It's good that you're hearing these term shifts, but keep in mind that when evaluating causal arguments, it would be more important that we deal with the causal assumption in how the author interprets the correlation.
on pg. 471,
I totally agree that #1 jumps out more as a Temporal Flaw. In fact, I don't even think this one is a good example of a Relative vs. Absolute.
I've never seen an LSAT argument go from a Relative idea like "higher score" to an Absolute idea that is both very quantitatively specific (3.9) and carries with it an outside-knowledge assumption (3.9 = high).
I think that's just one we could have done better. The conclusion would be more LSAT-like if it said,
"so I know my GPA will be high next semester."
Hope this helps.