In the Spring 2005 issue, Wang, Schnipke, and Witt provided an informative description of the task inventory approach that centered on four functions of job analysis. The discussion included persuasive arguments for making systematic connections between tasks and KSAs. But several other facets of the discussion were much less persuasive. This article offers a critique in the form of four counterarguments: (1) The job analysis method must be appropriate to the nature of the work; (2) The capacity of the task analysis inventory method to describe a complex profession is questionable; (3) Task importance ratings are inherently deficient; and (4) Careful generation of KSAs does not assure systematic item development, which is also necessary in the chain of validity evidence.