The Chinese Room argument fails to make its case, but not for that reason - Searle claims that no such instruction book could be written, and so the experiment

The Chinese Room argument fails to make its case, but not for that reason - Searle claims that no such instruction book could be written, and so the experiment could not be performed, meaning that the subject would have no possibility of learning from the outputs generated by performing it. If the experiment could be started, whatever the subject would learn from performing the role would be moot, as merely by getting started, without the subject initially knowing anything of the language in which the questions were posed, it would have refuted Searle. The reason the argument fails to make its case is that Searle does not have an effective response to the 'systems reply': in the paper, his response is a mixture of appeals to intuition, together with the erroneous claim that if the subject memorized the instructions, then the systems reply would not apply.