Hello!A law firm is asking me a question that I should argue (Pro / Con) in 300 words.
I have pretty relevant work experience that substantiates my view. Is linking it to my experience expected or shall I speak more theoretically?
You can definitely bring in your experience (in fact, it will often strengthen your answer) but the key is how you use it.
For a 300-word pro / con argument, the firm mainly wants to see that you can analyse an issue clearly, structure an argument, and show balanced reasoning. So the core of your answer should be theoretical, analytical points.
Your experience should come in only if it feels natural and when it supports a point you are making. Think of it as evidence, not the focus. A short, specific example (1-2 sentences max) can add credibility and show you understand how the issue plays out in practice, but it shouldn’t be the focus of your argument.
As long as the experience strengthens your argument rather than replaces it, I’d say it’s absolutely fine to include it!