Brief background:
Top 10 Public School, right below median GPA for Harvard. Aiming for YHS, trying to lock in CCN or T14 with significant scholarship.
Graduated in June, and currently working as a legal secretary for top 100 biglaw firm. Gained exposure to different practice groups (m&a, securities, real estate, IP litigation, and overall litigation - state and federal courts).
I realized I want to do regulatory work (more specifically in international trade), and work in DC (seeing as to how DC is the center for regulatory work). Would applying to jobs in DC, then gaining work experience in DC (as a legal assistant/paralegal in biglaw or something related to international trade) then studying for the LSAT on the side and going to law school a few years from now make more sense as compared to staying in my current role and locking in a high LSAT in June then applying early next cycle? I feel that the WE as a legal secretary wouldn't be viewed very highly by YHS specifically (even though it is in a biglaw firm) as compared to more specialized WE in a higher role (paralegal or regulatory analyst).
Scored around 167 on PTs, and still have roughly 30 fresh PTs left. Very confident in 170+ LSAT in June, aiming for 175.
Thoughts?
HELP?!
I was between B & E, but I thought B was a necessary assumption answer. Since this is a normal strengthening question, I didn't pick B on the grounds that I thought it would be the answer to a different type of question. Is this the complete wrong line of thinking?
I see how the stimulus already states that the bigger houses were for rich people, and thus why E is wrong, because it's somewhat irrelevant.