5kg of rice is still all rice from the same field. A gift pack is made up of different items made in completely different factories, many times, from completely different countries. A soap factory doesn't make the plastic wrapping and the plastic company doesn't make the cardboard boxing. A car, at least is made in all one factory, so it bypasses this as well, which is why I gave the "logic" of it some leniency (even though it's one hell of a stretch in logic). Back to the rice, the packaging is also a problem in logic for this as well. The fact is, the writer just took VERY BIG liberties in what constitutes as a singular item. There's no getting around that fact. However, it only really becomes a plothole when you think about the packaging being included as a singular item included with the item being packaged. No LOGIC can explain this. However, opinion can explain anything, even though it doesn't mean it makes amy real sense. The writer came up with the rules, but the rules changed the moment they didn't recognize a universal sack as its own item, when, clearly, by EVERY definition, it absolutely is. Even at the store when you buy the one item. It's only said as (1) item to make it easy on the consumer and the merchants. If you, as the consumer, purchase a box of rice (1) item, you may not see it, but there is a paperwork trail that has every item of that (1) item broken down: the packaging, the glue to secure it, and the rice; they're all, on some manufacturers paperwork, broken down into individual items because each item needs to be paid for to the corresponding dealer, aka, 3 separate items to 3 separate manufacturers. The rice should've come naked (no package); the soap (same thing). That would've been the only way to truly say her gift only allows her to create one item at a time. What should've been said is that her gift allows her 1 use a day and each use has to be under a specific pricing amount. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Then, and only then, is there no argument and no confused logic.