(edited to remove quote of question)

There's nothing structurally wrong with Nº 2. It sounds a bit too formal for such a context, but it's all down to need, audience and taste, I guess.

And, yes , it is true that there is not always a undelying equivalent for every well-formed passive sentence, and vice versa, not always an equivalent for a well-formed active senrtence.

Try to find a suitable equivalent for this, for example:

The earth was formed millions of years ago.

There, the doer is unkown, and the passive is usually preferred in such cases.

But here, the doer is unknown and both forms work:

My wallet has been stolen.

Somebody has stolen my wallet.

There, a dummy subject can be used to create the active sentence, but imagine using a dummy for this:

The earth was formed millions of years ago.

? Somebody formed the earth millions of years ago.

If the dummy represents "an unknown, but knowable person", we can often use both the active form and passive forms. However, when the "unkown" becomes a group of unkowable persons, the passive is normally preferred:

The whole town was rebuilt after the war.

At least five films of "Macbeth" have been made.

It's true that in speech and informal writing, the active tends to be the preferred choice.

The road is being widened - They are widening the road.

There, another dummy ("they") is chosen to represent a general group of people.

 Here's another:

Tea is made in China

There, the doer is known, but not  needed, as it is obvious. Imagine:

? The Chinese make tea in China.

Sounds odd, right?

I suggest you do a bit of research on different websites that cover uses of the passive and active. Don't be satisfied with what you read in most grammar books.  Look deeper into why certain forms are chosen.