Consider the following story as an analogy:
Two pupils in a Home Economics class (let's call one "Ukd" and the other "LotF", entirely random names of course) are both given a butter knife by the teacher and shown how to cut butter with it. They practice on thousands of blocks of butter until they could do it with their eyes shut. However one day the teacher decided to give them a block of margarine and a piece of steak and asked them to slice both. Ukd and LotF both found the maragarine easy, by deducing it has similar properties to butter, but Ukd struggles on the steak. LotF on the other hand, being the clever-clogs he is, went and grabbed two more butter knives and held all of them in one hand. By cutting with three knives simultaneously, LotF found he could exert much more power and manages to slice the steak. Of course the task could have been completed much more easily with a steak knife, but neither pupil knows what that is.
The point under debate here shouldn't be whether cutting a steak is correctly labelled as a suitable task for a class who has only learned how to use butter knives, but rather whether the clever technique LotF figured out (which still only uses what the class has been taught to use) counts as within the remit of only using the "knowledge" which the class imparted.