I'm in a similar boat as you. I am switching careers to law and very excited about it. I don't know how much you already know about the process, but I'm just going to speak to most of it. I'm sure you know some of this, but I'll just put it out there.

LORs are necessary. Schools differ on what types of essay they ask of you, but most if not all will want LORs. From what I understand it is preferable to have it be from someone in academia/professors who can speak to your effort and motivation as a student. I need to do a little more research on which schools prefer what.

Schools will also typically ask for an essay on your personal story/statement. Sometimes they ask for a "why us" essay also. This essay is meant to express exactly why you want to go to their school (i.e. a certain professor, a certain club, a certain culture, etc.) If you have a criminal record or were put on academic probation they may also ask for you to speak directly towards that in a separate essay.

You don't necessarily need **experience ** in law, but it is good to show that you have had experience in the "real-world." Personally, I have decided to work as a paralegal this year and apply for fall of 2021. But by no means is this necessary. From what I understand, admissions does look very favorably on those with any sort of professional experience or time in military service. It is by no means a weakness.

LSAT is the single most important piece of your application. My plan is to put a lot of time into studying for the LSAT (~ 9 months) and take it a couple of times before the end of the year. How you score on LSAT will quickly determine what schools you may be able to get into, and what schools are automatically ruled out. I would advise you to look at the schools you are interested in, check what the median LSAT score was for last year's class and aim to hit that number. If your score is above the median, then it's looking good, but other factors like your essay and your undergraduate GPA come into play. LSAT and GPA are usually looked at together btw.

After you take the LSAT you should do the writing sample through LSAC. This will come into play also. Schools will also look at your resume.

Admissions timeline is important to consider also. It is best to get applications in by Nov. or Dec. as this is when the most spots are available at the schools. You can google law school timeline and it can give you a sense of the process.

Also, you should consider visiting the schools that interest you. They will allow you to attend a class and it is good to build a bridge with people in the admissions office. In general it is good to talk with them, ask them questions, try to make yourself stand out or really show them that you are interested in their school. This can be done via phone or in person. If you have questions, don't ask random people, actually call the admissions office of the schools and ask them directly. That is their job and it can really help show that you are interested.

Some of the top school will ask for in-person interviews. I don't know a lot about this tho. I hope this is helpful for you. Going to law school in your 30s is not uncommon. Personally, I have more of a story to tell now, and I think that's a huge plus.

Percentage of fat v. Total amount of fat .. two completely different measurements

In my mind, the resolve the discrepancy question is somewhat similar to a flawed reasoning question. The argument needs some extra information that proves to be critical to the understanding of the argument. In a flawed reasoning question you are trying to locate information that would completely undermine the argument. In a resolve the paradox question you are looking for the opposite. The correct answer is something, that if applied to the argument, would completely explain how the paradox (conflicting information) is actually not conflicting at all.

In example, here is a paradox used by LSAC: you just had a new gas water heater installed that is energy efficient, but your gas bill actually becomes more expensive over the next months. The information conflicts and presents a paradox. Now you need to find information that would explain why your gas bill went up, even though the new equipment should have made the bill go down. There are many reasons this might be possible. Perhaps the gas company decided to hike its rates, perhaps you have a new roommate that takes hour long hot showers. Both would resolve the conflict.

The trickier part comes when the question asks "all of these answers, if true, resolve the paradox EXCEPT." In this case the answer tends to be something that is simply irrelevant to what is being asked of you. It is also possible that the correct answer extends the gap between the two conflicting pieces of information - In example, what if one of the answer choices says: the new gas water heater uses a smaller percentage of gas. This doesn't help us resolve why the price goes up. In fact, if it is using less gas, then this would add to the paradox. Thus, such an answer choice would not help use resolve the paradox.

Overall, you know that you are looking for a new piece of information that, if added, alters the understanding of the statement. I'm not certain if this info helps or not. I hope it does!

I took practice test #60 today and realized that one of the RC passages was on the January 2020 LSAT I sat for. Does anyone else remember this? It was a passage about art forgery. Is it common for LSAC to repeat passages or questions from prior test?

The wording in B makes me wanna smash my laptop, lol. "does not obtain that would be expected to obtain" wtf? Also, rumors = a hypothesis? what? Insanity.

I made the mistake of thinking we needed to add something to the argument to help. I chose E because the intention was for the child to get the toy, and E seemed to resolve it. However, I now see that we are being asked to find the answer that is a generalization (oops :/) In this case it becomes a most strongly supported question. Very tricky. These principle questions seem to be difficult to pin down and they seem to have a variety of formats.

J.Y. is wrong to say that C introduces a "completely new idea." It's actually consistent with the first statement. The reason it is a wrong answer choice is because it flips the conditionality without negating.

I chose D over A because A is relative. An individual gets wiser as they get older, but that doesn't mean that everyone at age 30 has the same wisdom. Some develop wisdom more or less quickly and each individual may have different starting points. Not so with tree rings. It is objectively true that one ring equals one year

#help

A is ridiculous.. "If it were true (that herbal if effective) then the consequences would be false" .. shouldn't it say "if it were true then it would have consequences that are TRUE"..? If it were true that the herbal is effective, then it would be true that, consequently, people would use it. I guess what it is saying is that If it were true that the herbal is effective, then it would have consequences that people use it, but in fact those consequences are not true.