On April 4th, while starting my preparations for presenting my research at the AAG conference in New Orleans, I had a 3 hour meeting with Professor Esser to discuss my analysis and what I could tell the people that came to see my research at the conference. In this meeting, my analysis was thoroughly dismantled with the resounding comment of it not making any logical sense ringing through. There were multiple instances where I needed to go back and re–engage with how I was going about my research logically, primarily in the form of how I selected my cases. I was really confused during this meeting as to how to go about this, but Professor Esser was really helpful in suggesting that I look at the difference in the pairs of cities among the variables I had selected for my regression and that should lead me to the two cases that I was going to compare. He also suggested that I could make it stronger by using a mathematical equation to account for the weight of each variable and its difference, but also suggested that it might be a tough hard to complete that with the time left in the semester. Nevertheless, I found that second comment extremely instrumental when finding that there was no one pair of cities that truly stood out when comparing their differences among the variables that I had, so that really helped me along in my work.