It is advantageous to utilize those linguistic constructs which most emphatically dialog the paradigm conceptualized by the origination entity-person.
Or you could just say what you mean.
I used to work for a company where any reports we wrote for delivery to a customer had to be edited by the company's "deliverable department". They routinely changed every place where I wrote "use" to "utilize" and replaced other short words with longer words. This was done so mechanically that I wouldn't be surprised if they just used the search-and-replace function in Word. I can't imagine any purpose for it other than to sound more pretentious. (I'm not saying there is never a legitimate reason to use the word "utilize", just that a wholesale replacement of "use" with "utilize" is silly.)
(They also once changed a statement about the steps you had to take to "effect a change" to saying you had to do this to "affect a change". Umm, no. The procedure didn't alter the change, it caused it. I guess someone read in a book that lots of people use "effect" as a verb when they mean "affect", and so they blindly changed it without reading or understanding the sentence.)
I've often said that when people set out to write, they tend to have one of two motives. (a) To inform or educate the reader. In this case, they tend to use simple words, clear examples, etc. (b) To impress the reader with how smart the author must be to understand this complicated subject. In this case, they use big words, convoluted examples, etc. People who are really good at (a) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I don't know why people say differential calculus [or whatever] is so hard. It seems pretty logical and straightforward to me." People who are really good at (b) leave the reader walking away saying, "Wow, I never realized how complicated arithmetic really is. I thought I understood it until I read this book. That author must be a genius to understand this stuff; I couldn't make sense of a word of it."