Read the draft excerpt from an LSAT-style argumentative writing practice response about participatory budgeting. Draft: "In a holistic revision of the response, the writer should keep the essential point: the city should reserve a small share of the budget for participatory voting because residents can identify practical local improvements that officials may overlook. The draft also needs to keep the qualification that eligible projects still meet legal and cost requirements, but it currently repeats the same idea in several clauses." The writer wants to remove clutter without changing the argument's scope, concession, or essential evidence. Which revision best accomplishes that purpose?