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)

The key idea is to state the safety requirement in a tight, direct way. For safety, the exit should be unobstructed does exactly that: it links the rule to safety with a brief phrase and then states the clear condition in active, simple terms. It keeps the meaning—that the exit must be kept clear to protect people—without extra words or a heavy structure.

The longer versions overly elaborate or awkwardly force a relationship (“It is important to safety…,” “for safety of the people”) or add words without changing the meaning. The concise line uses a natural, direct form: a neutral preface (“For safety”) followed by the straightforward requirement (“the exit should be unobstructed”).