He addressed that. Some "things" listed are a collection of parts which are pretty useless if incomplete.
Are we going to enumerate the mechanical components of the computer down to screws, connectors, etc - some of which he could arguably live without? no. At some point we consider a collection of things a single whole thing. A puzzle is moot without all the pieces. Within reason, he's expanding that to include separable components which are functionally useless without other items; a laptop and a charger are pretty useless without each other, to the point that we may as well consider them part of the same thing ... ditto the "toiletry kit", a small bag (well, mine is) containing consumables all of which I need to become presentable each morning, the unified totality of parts becoming apparent if I miss just one of those things for a couple days.
The other interesting & valid selection - or in this case rejection - of "things" are those which he does have but could do without (if inconveniently, like socks) which have zero, even negative, resale value.
It's not a cheat. It's coping with a practical analysis of the problem, defining usable viable limits where others may flippantly disagree.
Because a toiletry kit is a set of [consumable, replaceable] parts, used pretty much all at once (same 20-minute process every day), where each component is not often chosen over an equivalent. I'll go thru a half-dozen shirts throughout the week (and society will object if I stick to just one), but nobody will care if I use the same toothpaste/toothbrush/floss/razor/foam/shampoo/soap/washcloth every day for years (replaced only when used up, and then replaced with the same product).
We have a variety of clothes as separate objects, as they are interchangeable (society objects if I _don't_ swap 'em on a daily basis), and can get by without some because there are others present as replacements.
In support of your point, it's a matter of where the line is drawn as a practical application to the scenario. While the kit may be considered a unit wherein parts really are part of the same non-interchangeable application (well, at least for us Y-chromosome types) and for purposes of this example isn't broken down further, the reverse may be applied. Rather than a given shirt considered a single object, by defined convention it could be considered a part of a complete outfit. Having so few pieces to interchange - say, the dress shirt not an acceptable match to the swim shorts - he could reduce the total count by considering sandals/jeans/polo a single unit as none of that stuff much goes with anything else he has.
To wit: that's just where he drew the line between things forming a unit and things counted separate but used together.
Are we going to enumerate the mechanical components of the computer down to screws, connectors, etc - some of which he could arguably live without? no. At some point we consider a collection of things a single whole thing. A puzzle is moot without all the pieces. Within reason, he's expanding that to include separable components which are functionally useless without other items; a laptop and a charger are pretty useless without each other, to the point that we may as well consider them part of the same thing ... ditto the "toiletry kit", a small bag (well, mine is) containing consumables all of which I need to become presentable each morning, the unified totality of parts becoming apparent if I miss just one of those things for a couple days.
The other interesting & valid selection - or in this case rejection - of "things" are those which he does have but could do without (if inconveniently, like socks) which have zero, even negative, resale value.
It's not a cheat. It's coping with a practical analysis of the problem, defining usable viable limits where others may flippantly disagree.