'want' 'should' 'will' in Conditional Statements

[PotatoSauce]

First of all, thank you so much for all the quality advice on here.
I hope to one day give back to this forum by sharing my experiences/knowledge of LSAT once I'm done and hopefully have mastered this beast.

I seeking some help for pt20 section 1 #17. I got the question correct but am a bit stumped by the sentences in choices (A) and (C).

In (A), the first sentence gives the conditional: 
        a business treats customers discourteously -> customers shop elsewhere

But does the next sentence that "Shopwell wants to keep all of its customers so they will never treat cusotmers discourteously" fit the conditional statement from the first sentence?

My thinking was that a conditional statement is on two concrete events and since 'wanting to' or 'will not be' doing something is a matter of intent and prediction respectively, that the sentences after the first can not be turned into conditional statement.
I also thought the same for (C) which again established a conditional in the first sentence but then uses different wording 'should' in the following sentences.
Can tell me if my thinking is correct? Or am I over-analyzing and are conditional statements more loose in terms of categorizing than I thought?

[marcus-aurelius]

I am a little confused by your question, but I think I understand what you mean. The original statement is in the form   If x, then y.  (if treated discourteously then customers shop elsewhere)   If you take the contrapositive to the original statement (if not y, then not x), it reads-- If a customer does NOT shop elsewhere, then they are not treated discourtesouly.
 The second statement, what shopwell wants is immaterial.  What they will do is important.   This is the equivalent of saying ~x (not x).  This condition tells you nothing other than you have a necessary condtion to keep customers.  It is not sufficient to keep customers, but is required if they stay.

Look at it like this, if they do not treat the customers discourteously, but they are forget to stock up and run out of all items, they will lose custoemrs anyway.  Or another way is if you bake a cake, you have eggs.  But having eggs is not enough for a cake, you also need sugar, water, etc.

I hope that clears it up a bit.  If not let me know and I;ll try to explain a little more

[Jeffort]

First of all, thank you so much for all the quality advice on here.
I hope to one day give back to this forum by sharing my experiences/knowledge of LSAT once I'm done and hopefully have mastered this beast.

I seeking some help for pt20 section 1 #17. I got the question correct but am a bit stumped by the sentences in choices (A) and (C).

In (A), the first sentence gives the conditional: 
        a business treats customers discourteously -> customers shop elsewhere

But does the next sentence that "Shopwell wants to keep all of its customers so they will never treat cusotmers discourteously" fit the conditional statement from the first sentence?

My thinking was that a conditional statement is on two concrete events and since 'wanting to' or 'will not be' doing something is a matter of intent and prediction respectively, that the sentences after the first can not be turned into conditional statement.
I also thought the same for (C) which again established a conditional in the first sentence but then uses different wording 'should' in the following sentences.
Can tell me if my thinking is correct? Or am I over-analyzing and are conditional statements more loose in terms of categorizing than I thought?

I think I get your question, correct me if I'm wrong. 

RE: Answer choice (A), second sentence, you are asking whether or not that can be translated into a conditional statement? and also asking how and if it fits with the conditional in the first sentence.  Is that correct?

The first sentence presents the conditional relationship between the two elements.  treat discourteously ---> DON'T keep customers

The second sentence tells you a fact and applies it to the general principle/conditional statement to form a conclusion about the factual truth of the other element.   

The conditional relationship between the fact established '...wants to keep all of its customers...' and the conclusion drawn, 'never treat discourteously' 
WANTS to keep customers ---> NOT treat discourteously
represents the METHOD OF REASONING the argument employs/path it takes to draw its conclusion from the combination of the fact and the conditional statement/general principle premise.

You shouldn't try to link the two sets together, instead you compare them to see if the application of facts to principle is logical or not and similar to the reasoning structure in the stimulus. 

Confusing your diagrams of premises with ones of the reasoning structure used to reach the conclusion can really mess things up. 

[PotatoSauce]

I guess my question was confusing but you guys hit the spot where my issue was.

So what I drew from your responses is that I do need to be aware of those differences since 'wanting' something and 'doing' something is indeed different.
Categorizing the conditional as a general principle and the following sentences as facts helped simplify the thinking for me.
I think (c) also makes sense now since similarly to (a), it begins with a conditional statement as a general principle in the first sentence  [show lack of leadership -> respect declines], but then leads to the necessary conclusion without triggering the sufficient condition.

Thanks for the clarification guys.