In his review of Crain & Thornton's (C&T) (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar (IUG), Drozd raises many substantial concerns that call into question the correctness and usefulness of the Modularity Matching Model, and the adequacy of the experimental designs put forth to support it. My comments will focus on Modularity Matching. First, I elaborate on Drozd's suggestion that C&T's comparisons between Modularity Matching and other (potential) models do not provide convincing support for their model. Second, I suggest that Modularity Matching, while a strong claim, considers such a narrow range of phenomena in child language that its usefulness in explaining language development in general is likewise constrained.