One example can't explain thinking
The imitation game attempts to explain thinking in terms of one example, a man's ability to imitate a woman. But mental activity is more diverse—eg wondering, deliberating, writing sonnets etc. Thinking's all purpose: the game uses just one ability.
"And if someone were to ask us for an example of Johnson's intellectual prowess or mental capacities, we might well point to this game which he often played, and how he enjoyed trying to outwit Peterson and Hanson who also participated in it. But we would only regard it as one of the many examples we might give of Peterson's mental capacities. We would ordinarily not feel hard pressed to produce countless other examples of Peterson deliberating, figuring, wondering, reflecting, or what in short we can call thinking. We might, for example, relate how he works over his sonnets or how he argues with Hanson...What I...want to emphasize is that what we would say about Peterson in countless other situations is bound to influence what we say about him in the imitation game" (Gunderson, 1964, p. 66).
"Thinking, whatever positive characterization or account is correct, is not something which any one example will explain or decide. But the part of Turing's case which I've been concerned with rests largely on one example" (Gunderson, 1964, p. 67).
Gunderson, Keith (1964) "The Imitation Game," in Anderson, A. R. (ed.) Minds and Machines, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall.