What are you talking about? You presented the argument as a potential rebuttal to the claim that students cheat. It's inherently implied that it's an argument f

What are you talking about? You presented the argument as a potential rebuttal to the claim that students cheat. It's inherently implied that it's an argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech... otherwise it wouldn't be a rebuttal at all, and instead is a non-sequitur fallacy. Yes, if you strip away the context of the literal words you said, you're correct. But in context, you're not.