The vast majority of analytic philosophers think the Chinese Room argument is unsound. Some think it is obviously and utterly unsound. Others think it is subtly unsound.
If the answer is as long as the problem statement, that's enough. Of course, if a philosopher sees the whole history behind it, there might be more associations and hence bases to cover.
There are in my view exceptions but mostly analytical philosophy is relying too much on clear definition of language rather than investigating the premise of the defintion and the accept that it's always a fuzzy line.
This often lead them down paths that are rational from the point of their premise but with a simplified premise. (The man in the room isn't conscious of Chinese therefore...).
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyrbend are welcome exceptions although Lakatos and Feyrbend perhaps went too far.
There are many good and useful things about analytical philosophy the chinese room argument is just and example of what isn't so good about it.
The real answer to the chinese room argument simply is. We don't know. But this to most analytical philosophers is heresy . Their reliance on language to provide us with truth is too strong.
Sure I am generalizing. This is a comment in a thread not a philosophical paper.
That does not mean my generalizations are wrong.
You are welcome to disagree with me about either the Chinese room or my generalization about analytical philosophers. But why not then argue against what I say instead of doing what you accuse me of?