Thus far, no one has asserted any logic, thus there is no logic to like or understand. There is only an assertion of arbitrary fiat. I don't believe this to be the actual answer. Because if it is, then that is the earmark of someone who didn't actually do the thinking behind the design. Which I am not convinced is true.
No, my question is aimed at what went into the decisions. The given answers don't match the given reasons. Therefore, they don't add up, and hence, as ultimately entirely unsatisfying, giving more credence to some theories about the early development of the D&D game that are less than flattering to some in attendance here. I don't believe those are true, therefore, the actual answers cannot be the ones handed about here.