As one of the rejectors of one of the attempts (probably the 2nd or the 3rd) I will add my reasons (emphasizing the points that have not already been explained by Arthur Fischer and Goos).
The original post used somewhat questionable phrasing at the two points this edit was about. But effectively those were just paragraph titles in a typical proof by induction, so the question was very understandable with or without the edit. Indeed, nobody bothered to make these corrections in March '12, which speaks volumes. The reason may be that mistakes such as these allow the answerers to "read between the lines". Here it is clear that the OP is either new to induction (OK, that was abundantly clear anyway) and/or a non-native user of (mathematical) English. Experienced answerers seek to take clues like this into account, when gauging the level of detail that will help the asker. I have also seen occasions, where teachers with a lot of experience dealing with foreign students switch to slightly simpler language, when there are telltale signs of problems with English (wish I could do that as well). I don't know whether that applies here.
Anyway, the only person who might potentially benefit from this edit is the OP, who would now be well placed to learn a better way of phrasing these two sentences. She has not logged in since April '12, so... The (unlikely) future answerers will lose these extra clues. For them the edit was a turn for worse.