The task of reconstructing Q has always been fraught with challenges, some arising from the inherently nuanced nature of the endeavor, others stemming from skepticism with which such attempts have not infrequently been met. In recent decades the impossibility of a precise reconstruction of Q has been asserted by a number of scholars at least partly on the grounds of what Dieter T. Roth calls in his 2018 monograph “a thought experiment” involving the reconstructed text of Mark’s gospel. As the argument goes, Mark’s gospel, when reconstructed solely from the Matthew-Luke overlap containing Markan material, amounts to a document that does not closely resemble the canonical gospel of Mark as we know it. Consequently, the proponents of this argument conclude, any reconstruction of Q as a document should similarly be viewed with suspicion. In this paper we shall suggest that the “reconstructed Mark” argument cannot be deployed to invalidate the reconstruction of Q as a document, because Mark’s gospel presents an inadequate test case for Q. The multiple ways in which the two documents differ from one another will be highlighted. We shall also revisit the once well-known but perhaps more recently forgotten or underappreciated observations clearly showing that the evangelists consistently treat the double synoptic tradition material, viz., Q, more favorably than their Markan source. The purpose of our discussion will not be to discourage continued critical assessment of Q’s word-level reconstructions in the future. We do hope, however, to shift scholars’ attention away from what is at best a simplistic argument.