While it is true that there are several ways to craft a sentence that achieves the same rhythm, the original essay was making a point that was broader than that. As I read it, the main idea was that sometimes rewriting the sentence can cause it to lose its ideal cadence. That's because certain words and phrases just sound right together when they are first thought of. Rewriting them may make them more concise or clear, but it may also disrupt the natural flow of the sentence. This is why I believed Nikhil's original essay - while acknowledging the importance of crafting effective sentences - was ultimately advocating for preserving the initial thought whenever possible.
In addition, Nikhil's essay suggested that the beauty of a sentence lies not only in its clarity but in its cadence. This is why he recommended "pretending the rewrite never happened." While both versions may have been technically correct, one had an appeal that was lost when the other replaced it - an appeal which can't be replicated, no matter how hard one tries.
So, while there is wisdom to the retort's suggestion that rewriting can help to make a sentence more concise or clear, it would be wrong to suggest that rewriting will always result in a superior outcome. After all, sometimes beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder - or ear, as the case may be!