Was the 16-85mm a wise purchase in addition to the 18-105?

My parents recently bought the Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 kit lens online. (I know most say that it's a better idea to simply buy the body and skip the kit lens, which tends to have lesser quality, but the body and the entire set were both the same price.) This will be our first digital SLR, although we do have experience with film and point and shoots.
I tried to do some research online about which zoom lenses to buy in addition to the kit lens and on a Flickr forum many people said they used their 16-85 most often when leaving the house. We decided to order this lens as well but now I'm not so sure if it was necessary. The 18-105 has the same aperture range (f/3.5-5.6) and it offers a slightly larger zoom range. A comparison between the 16-85 and 18-200 on Ken Rockwell's website revealed there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the 16mm and 18mm wide angles. I realize the kit lens is made of a plastic mount, and the quality of its materials is cheaper, but is there a recognizable difference in quality in the photos produced by the 16-85 and 18-105?
It just seems to me that the 16-85 is simply a more convenient, condensed version of the 18-105 lens--am I mistaken?
Hmph this question ended up longer than I thought it would be but basically, I'm wondering if my parents' money was well-spent on the 16-85 or if it should be exchanged for another lens with a similarly versatile range but a larger aperture.

I don't think so. With the 18 -105 you have an ultra wide angle up to a smaller telephoto lens. The 16-85 has even more wide angle only to have not only half but all of the rubbish laying around the primary motive on the picture. The upwards range is not exceeding the one of the other lens. I would much more prefer a 70 - 200 or 70 - 300 (or 80 mm as lower focal length). That is a real expansion of capability into a direction which makes sense. I don't leave the house without a 70 - 200mm. (I have however a CANON 1 D). I personally hate wide angle lenses (all below 50mm). Not everything has to be on a picture. The art is to concentrate on the important and cut off the rest. If necessary you can take another picture from it.

You only gained 2mm in the wide end. To me that's not significant at all. I suggest you sell your 18-105mm and get an 80-200mm, an 80-400mm, or a 200-400mm instead. The longer the zoom, the poorer it is optically.

In my opinion your parents should return the 16-85mm lens and ask for a refund. Adding another slow, variable aperture zoom lens with a negligible increase at the wide end (16mm vs 18mm) and losing "reach" at the long end (85mm vs 105mm) is not, in my opinion, a good investment. A better investment would be in a good tripod or the Nikon AF 50mm f1.4G prime lens.