Bunuel
At the state beach, deaths
due to drowning have increased by 35% this year, not because of fewer lifeguards but because of dramatic changes in ocean currents.
A. due to drowning have increased by 35% this year, not because of
B. by drowning have increased by 35% this year, due not to
C. from drowning having increased by 35% this year, not because of having
D. due to drowning this year have increased by 35%, not due to
E. from drowning have increased this year by 35%, due not to
Magoosh Official Explanation
Split #1: issues with due to. The word "due" is an adjective, and so it can only modify a noun, most typically the noun it touches. It makes sense to use “due to” in the first instance, since we are describing specific deaths: the ones due to drowning. “Due to”, as used in (B), (D) and (E), however, is incorrect since we are not describing “years”. In other words, what follows “due to”, in this case “lifeguards”, does not logically describe “years”. So we must use “because of”. For more on "due to" vs "because of", check out this article.
We must also use "because of" to maintain parallelism with what comes in the non-underlined part: “because of dramatic changes”. This is thus an application of the "once outside, twice inside" rule: "not because of lifeguards but because of dramatic changes..."
Split #2: That set us up for the final split: notice in (C), there is a lack of parallelism between “because of NOUN (dramatic changes)” and “because of having NOUN (fewer lifeguards)."
Answer: (A)