Answer
The first one( Fig 1.3$)$ is more efficient and elegant since it would look the
same regardless of how many times the loop has to be performed. Only the
value of WashCount would change.
Work Step by Step
The algorithm from Fig 1.3 contains an iterative operation (repeating a
number of steps) and a value to keeping track of how many times the loop
should be performed.
The Fig 1.4 algorithm simply has steps which look exactly the same and
take extra space while not providing enough new information. One would
only have to read the 3 steps and count how many times the same steps are
written which is what WashCount is for in the second algorithm.
The first one is more efficient and elegant since it would look the same
regardless of how many times the loop has to be performed. Only the value
of WashCount would change.
