The essay “Defending the Power of Learning” by Jay Mathews explained how one of many students was accused of academic dishonesty. During the regular school session of the year 2001, three-quarters of the 187 students at the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) were found guilty of cheating. This is because they collaborated on an assignment in a computer science (CS) class with friends. By communicating with others about the project, the students violated the course honor code that prohibited discussion among students in that particular class. Perhaps some people might argue that no collaboration is unhealthy and ineffective in a learning context. Well, that is not the case for GIT freshmen who are taking CS 1321. As stated by GIT, students are evaluated based on their individual abilities to perform the required work. I believe that universities should exercise their right to establish reasonable and effective academic policies for their students, but without overly defined measures or limitations. For example, the policy Mathews explained that GIT had in place for freshmen who were taking CS is overstated with little consideration for how students will naturally react. Mathews argued on behalf of one student in particular who was the victim of violating the computer science honor code. According to Mathews' knowledge of GIT's computer science honor code, it stated that “at no time is it acceptable for you [students] to share your homework solutions with other students, whether these solutions are complete or partial , nor is it acceptable to compare your solutions with those of other students." (Mathews 210) Legally, I agree with GIT for convicting this student for cheating and applying the punishment... middle of paper. ..that didn't make sense." (Mathews 212) It somehow seems to the reader that the writer is trying to make his audience feel sorry for the students, but this is not the case. Is the justification for the author's claim that he has not made a logical fallacy the use of adequate facts gathered by the student? Who has been convicted of fraud and their personal understanding of the issue. Indeed, Jay Mathews has done an admirable job in illustrating his argument as effectively as possible for the better understanding of the sad situation that occurred at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Once again, he made strong and concise points with adequate reasons and supports. We, as a classroom community, should try to use the strategies used by Mathews to ensure we discuss at the most optimal level possible. Works by Citedrobert Yagelski and Robert Miller. informed arguments. eighth edition