Which version is most concise while preserving meaning? Original: It is important to the safety of the people that the fire exit be left unobstructed.

Which version is most concise while preserving meaning? Original: It is important to the safety of the people that the fire exit be left unobstructed.

• A. It is important to safety that the exit remains unobstructed.
• B. The fire exit must stay unobstructed for safety.
• C. For safety, the exit should be unobstructed.
• D. It is important for the safety of the people that the exit be unobstructed.

Answer: (C)

Conciseness and natural phrasing in safety instructions. The best version cuts to the point: it states the safety goal directly and uses a simple, active structure. “For safety, the exit should be unobstructed” front-loads the purpose with “For safety,” then uses “the exit should be unobstructed,” which preserves the meaning of ensuring the exit remains clear while sounding clear and direct. It avoids the heavy, awkward construction of the original and the wordiness of the longer options.

The other formulations feel bloated or awkward. One uses an unidiomatic phrase and adds extra words, another is longer and shifts emphasis with “should” versus a stronger or weaker modal, and the longest option repeats filler phrases that don’t add essential meaning. The concise version communicates the obligation clearly and efficiently.