Getting It Almost Right

The following is a question (or at least a variant of) I like to give on a Principles of Microeconomics test:

"Anything worth doing is worth doing as best as you possibly can." This statement is
        a) true.
        b) false.
        c) irrelevant to the theory of economic choice.
        d) a positive statement.

Scott Adams provides an explanation for why the correct answer is b.

I consider myself the master of the 80% rule. Everything I do is shoddy by most people’s standards. For some reason this does not bother me as much as you might think. I have a high tolerance for imperfection. I consider it a key to my success.

For example, it might surprise you to know I’m a better artist than my comic strip indicates – about 20% better. But to reach that level consistently would double my workload and give me little in return. The art in Dilbert is, roughly speaking, “good enough.” And the lack of complexity arguably adds something in the “x-factor” category.

Update: I stated that Adams provides an explanation as opposed to a correct explanation, because actually Adams has it partly wrong. Adams is advocating absolute imperfection rather than relative imperfection. The reason anything worth doing is not worth doing as well as you can is because the cost of doing A to perfection is not doing a better job at B. We spend as much time doing A to the point that one more minute  spent perfecting A gives us as much utility per minute as one more minute spent perfecting B.

I'm guessing that Adams skimps on his Dilbert work but does not conduct his finances to 80% accuracy. I would guess that Adams isn't bothered if his doctor plays golf to only 80% accuracy, but would find a new doctor if his was only 80% effective and correct.

We don't do many things to perfection because of the opportunity costs. This means that, ceteris paribus, we spend more time doing those things that are very important to us and less time doing those things that are not as important.

Addendum: Corrected for clarity.