Passage Summary: Software can make a legal will for less money, but you should pay for a lawyer anyway because they customize the document to your life, just like you'd pay a doctor for a specific diagnosis rather than just any medicine.

Conclusion: It is always worth the cost to pay for a lawyer's expert advice when creating a will.

Reasoning: While software is cheaper and produces a valid will, a lawyer provides personalized advice tailored to specific circumstances, much like a doctor provides specific medical advice rather than just a generic prescription.

Analysis: The argument relies on an analogy between medical care and legal services, assuming that 'tailoring' is a universal necessity. For the conclusion to be true—that it is *always* worth the cost—the argument must assume that every person's situation is complex enough to benefit from that tailoring. If there were people with extremely simple estates where software and a lawyer produced the exact same result, the extra cost wouldn't be 'worth it.' Look for an answer that bridges the gap between the existence of a service (tailoring) and its absolute value for every single consumer.