Do you not genuinely not understand the logic of the argument? The fact that A does Y using Z doesn't entail that B does Y using Z.
I genuinely don’t understand how the analogy about naval vessels is a fair simplification of the argument that Chomsky’s research programme is, heuristically, a dead-end and should be abandoned. What is A,B,Y,Z?
It’s not like it’s an outrageous position. Chomsky’s tradition is quite controversial and is outside of mainstream nowadays. And connectionism is a valid scientific approach.