How To Debunk Due To / Because of? Provide Eg.

Please post your question in the right section.

Moreover, read the rules for posting in each section of gmatclub.

Thank you for your collaboration

Hi all,

Can anyone help me on when to use "because of" and when to use "due to"?

Thanks in advance.

Merging similar topic. Please go through the above discussion for your query.

Dear bhargav63,
I'm happy to respond.

Here's a blog that may help:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom ... nsequence/

The above entries fail to point out --- the word "due" is an adjective. It must modify a particular noun, typically the noun that it touches. By contrast, "because of" introduces an adverbial phrase, that is, a verb-modifying or clause-modifying phrase, so this can modify a verb or an action, and it can fall anywhere in the sentence.

The school committee canceled the picnic, because of rain.
This is correct. The "because of" clause modifies the verb "canceled."

The school committee canceled the picnic, due to rain.
This would be common in colloquial English, but this is wildly incorrect. This sentence is implying that the picnic itself was caused by rain or founded on the theme of rain, which is entirely illogical and not what the writer is trying to say.

"due to" modifies nouns. It can't modify a verb or a whole clause.
"because of" modifiers verbs & clauses & actions. It can't modify a noun.

For this reason, we can use "due to" after a form of the verb "to be"
The cancellation was due to rain. = correct
It is incorrect and unidiomatic to use "because of" in this structure
The cancellation was because of rain.

For this distinction, and for many others, you may find these free GMAT idiom flashcards helpful:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/flashcards/idioms

Mike

Hi Mike,

Can you please explain my doubt here : originally-developed-by-ancient-hawaiians-surfing-appeals-102734.html#p1393602

The doubt deals with "due to" vs "because of".

Dear kinjiGC,
Yes, I am happy to help.

First of all, let's think about the Modifier Touch Rule. This is usually true. This is NOT 100% true. What are the most common exceptions?
1) a vital noun modifier can come between a noun and a noun-vital modifier; the noun-vital modifier would not touch the noun. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/
2) a short list of examples ---- "... leafy-green vegetables, such as lettuce or kale, which contain .." The "which" clause clearly refers to "vegetables", not "kale." This is known exception to the touch rule.
3) a short predicate ---- "The manager was fired who embezzled several thousand ..." The "who" clearly refers to "manager", even though a short predicate intervenes.

Now, the word "due" is an adjective, a noun modifier, so it obeys the Modifier Touch Rule, and is subject to the common exceptions to the Touch Rule. How "short" does a short predicate have to be so that its intervening presence doesn't constitute a problem with the Touch Rule? Well, to some extent, that's a judgment call, a matter of taste. This is the part of grammar that is not mathematical and precise --- there's some wiggle room here.

In the sentence:
"... surfing appeals to people due to the sport’s unusual confluence of adrenaline, skill, and high paced maneuvering, ..."
Well, that predicate, coming between the target noun "surfing" and the modifier "due" is relatively short --- only three words. Furthermore, the phrase "to people" is idiomatically bound to the verb "appeals" --- we can't put it elsewhere in the sentence, because it would disrupt the idiom. This is not a "vital modifier", because that concept applies only to noun modifiers, but immediacy of contact that the structure "to people" demands is analogous to the demand of a vital noun modifier. Therefore, these three words need to go together, and even all together, it's only a three-word predicate --- hardly a big interruption between the target noun and its proper modifier. This is well within the valid exceptions to the touch rule.

Yes, that idiomatic phrase contains a second noun, and couldn't we read "due" as illogically applying to "people"? Well, that reading disregards the tight idiomatic relationship between "to people" and "appeals."

Having said all this, I am not 100% happy with this question. Technically "surfing" is not "due to the sport’s unusual confluence of ..." Rather, the "appeal" is "due to" all that. Technically, this is a use of the adjective "due to" as a verb-modifier, which in my understanding is 100% wrong. Admittedly, this use is rampant in colloquial English, and this may be a rare instance in which the GMAT has slightly more relaxed standards than do we grammatical purists. I don't know how old that particular question is: I have seen other older questions contain subtle mistakes such as this or questionable elements, and those questions were eliminated from future editions. Sometimes, the folks who write the GMAT are not perfect. I am not sure how relaxed the GMAT standards are on this, but it's very good to know the rule and all its exceptions with great precision.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Can someone help? I am struggling with how to go about correcting the "due to" error in the following sentences (from Ron's videos):

1) I have to stay up all night due to the presentation that I must finish.
2) I was two hours late to the meeting due to a traffic-jam.

Here's how I tried to replace the first part of the sentence with a noun / gerund / noun clause / something that answers to "what":

1) (a) My staying up all night was due to the presentation that I had to finish.
1) (b) That I stayed up all night was due to the presentation that I had to finish.

In (a), the "replace with caused by" test fails (?): My staying up all night was caused by the presentation...
It seems as if the night was caused by the presentation, which is incorrect.
In (b), however, it seems to work fine (?) to my ear, but is still adjacent to "night": That I stayed..all night was due to ..

Same with correction "My being late to the meeting was due to a traffic-jam."

What am I missing? Is there no way to convert it so that "due to" points to a noun/noun clause? Or is "due to" NEVER allowed to point to a noun clause and must point to a plain simple noun at all times?

Dear HardWorkBeatsAll,
I'm happy to respond.

Both of your sentences are 100% grammatically correct, but that is besides the point. The construction "due to" certainly can be used with a noun-clause or a gerund phrase, but beware of bending a sentence out of shape just to fit it into such a Procrustean pattern.

Typically, when "due to" is used incorrectly, it is used as an adverbial phrase, a verb or phrase modifier, and the most expedient solutions are to replace the "due to" entirely with something that legitimately can act as an adverbial phrase or clause.
1)(c) I have to stay up all night because of the presentation that I must finish. = wordy & awkward
1)(d) I have to stay up all night because I have to finish a presentation. = direct & elegant.
Similarly,
2)(c) I was two hours late to the meeting because of a traffic-jam. = not bad, a little indirect
2)(d) A traffic jam made me two hours late to the meeting. = very direct & powerful

You see, my friend, in attempting to correct the grammar, you created two awkward rhetorical disasters. Both 1(c) & 1(d) are 100% grammatically correct, and neither would ever be the OA on the GMAT SC: in fact, despite the fact that they are completely correct grammatically, they would actually serve well as incorrect choices on the SC. Good writing depends on not only grammar but also logic and rhetoric, and the GMAT SC tests all three of these regularly. If you only pay attention to grammar and ignore rhetoric, you will look at monsters like 1(c) & 1(d) and think they are ideal as is, and in doing so, you will fall right into one of the more sophisticated kinds of traps on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.