A -> B is a possible conclusion, but it's not the only conclusion since other entities come after B. (We already learned the A -> B structure in previous lessons, so J.Y. probably just didn't include it.)

I see an absolute as a claim in which the author believes there's no argument about it.

For example, absolute truth is the idea that there's no argument whether something is true or not. It simply is.

Plugging that into our discussion of comparatives, an absolute is something that's not comparing characteristics; It's making a claim with no "either/or."

In the sentence "Tom's recipe for lasagna is easy to follow for most people," the sentence isn't making a relative comparison between types of recipes (Tom's or otherwise).

That's why the sentence is labeled as an absolute - it's simply stating that it's absolutely, undeniably the case that most people can easily follow the recipe. (Of all the people using Tom's recipe, most people find it easy.)

That's why we can't say, "Oh, Tom's recipe is easier to follow than most other recipes." We don't know that; Tom's recipe could actually be harder than other recipes.

The sentence isn't comparing recipes or even the difficulty level of a singular recipe. It is just making a claim that a singular recipe is easy (for most people).

You should be able to tell what the subject is based on what the rest of the sentence (predicate) is referring to.

In the sentence above, "you" is the subject, "should be able" is the verb, and "should be able to tell what the subject is based on what the rest of the sentence (predicate) is referring to" is the predicate containing the verb "should be able."

Any nouns surrounding the subject will always be describing or referring to the subject in some way. They're the supporting cast, if you will.

Support answers the "why" of the argument; Context is just information that helps the argument make sense.

Yes, you're just identifying argument structure :)

Okay but how is the general public supposed to know what ameliorate means? I understand using confusing language on the LSAT to throw us off, but why use uncommon vocabulary? Seems like they're assuming we've all heard of the word....

I understood the argument to say: "Color-changing ink is easily identifiable and harder to duplicate than microprinting, therefore -> use color-changing ink." The idea for that argument is that counterfeiters can mimic pictures or symbols, but it would be difficult to mimic a special, exact color.

B is correct in weakening the argument because it says, "Hold up: Expert counterfeiters CAN actually reproduce that special ink (i.e., how would a Random Joe know the difference if the color can be duplicated?). However, they can't catch those little symbols." If the ink is reproducible, it certainly wouldn't be worth spending alllll that money. If the pros can reproduce it, what's the point? Might as well pick a less costly option.