One response to Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment is the so-called System’s Reply, which states that even though Searle (who executes the instructions) does not understand Chinese, the system as whole does. Searle analyses this response and asserts that, by internalizing the whole system, he would appear as a native Chinese speaker to the outside world, yet he would still not understand Chinese. In an effort to challenge Searle’s counter-argument against the System’s Reply, Levesque proposes a more easily characterized and analysed setting, called the Summation Room. Within this simplified context, Levesque argues that the observed behaviour is still sufficiently complex that it cannot be produced without appropriate mental qualities. While we acknowledge the validity of Levesque’s assertions, in this paper, we claim that Searle’s counter-argument remains robust despite Levesque’s counter-counter-argument.