Non-Sequitur - Almost Certain?

When you come with an argument like that, break it down to the rule. For example,

If X is used in Y, then X must be more useful than Y.

The next step is to try to prove the rule wrong (or casually "absurd") by creating other rules:

A cigarette lighter is used in a car, therefore, a cigarette lighter is more useful than a car.
A picture of a clown is used in a hospital, therefore, a picture of a clown is more useful than a hospital.
etc.

You can quickly see that the rule doesn't work.

{date-time stamp}Tuesday, Jan 28, 2020 12:33 PM{/date-time stamp}
Got an anonymous comment:

Math makes science work.
The lighter does NOT make the car work.

Here the premise has been swapped for a new one that changes the argument. This new argument would go a follows:

Math makes science work.
Therefore, Mathematics must be more useful than science.

Again, same strategy as I mentioned earlier:

If X makes Y work, then X is more useful than Y.

Water makes life work, therefore, water is more useful than life.

Another problem is the ambiguity of "useful." Useful for what? A flashlight is more useful for seeing in the dark than a battery even though a battery makes a flashlight work.

There is also a problem when the thing that makes the other thing work can easily be substituted. For example, fossil fuels makes cars work but because cars also run on electricity and most likely will much more so in the future, it is or will be difficult to argue that fossil fuels are more useful than those things fossil fuels currently power.

Drinking at night causes one to pose illogical fallacies.
All people should stop drinking.