Is this a conditional statement?

[farman]

"In order to be prepared for the test, you should study and get plenty of sleep."

I'm doing the LR workbook from PowerScore and this is one of the drills. I thought the necessary part of a conditional statement was supposed to be something that WILL happen if the sufficient condition is met, so "should" to me does not sound strong enough to be conditional in nature. Am I correct about this?

So for the problem I wrote "not conditional" but to add to my perplexity, the answer to this drill question exchanges the "should" for a "must", which I know would make it conditional. I'm guessing it's just an error that was overlooked, but it is a bit annoying as it's causing me to question what I think I already know...

[McGruff]

Don't overthink it; it sounds like your level and kind of analysis is right on track.

edit: n/m this wasn't a test question just some random PowerScore drill? Yeah don't worry about it you're right and it shouldn't happen on the LSAT.

[msp8]

Should is considered strong language for the LSAT.

Forget your notions of words that have relative meaning. On the LSAT, these words take on their own meanings on the scale of relativity. Learn the LSAT scale.

[kevgogators]

Never seen a conditional like that on the real deal. I think you're right; not worth stressing.

[RZ5646]

In real life it would be more complicated, but I think for the LSAT you can just make it a conditional, "preparedness --> (sleep and study)".

I think on the June 2007 test they use "it's important to" as a necessary condition indicator and that definitely threw me off the first time I saw it.