Because v. Due to

[RonPurewal]

... and a bit of reflection should convince you that, if modifiers weren't allowed to have their own subjects+verbs, then many perfectly normal ideas (e.g., We're discussing the book that we read last week) would be impossible to write.

[AsadA969]

I get it.
Thanks Ron.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[AndyH539]

Dear Ron,
I am confused about the example discussed earlier.
"I suffered a fracture due to the fall" is correct senstence or incorrect?
It seems correct to me because
1) when replacing "caused by" with "due to", it still makes sense.
2) "due to the fall" modifies fracture.

Can you also please share some examples which used "due to" properly?

Thanks in advance.
andy.

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron,
I am confused about the example discussed earlier.
"I suffered a fracture due to the fall" is correct senstence or incorrect?
It seems correct to me because
1) when replacing "caused by" with "due to", it still makes sense.
2) "due to the fall" modifies fracture.

this is exactly what i wrote earlier in this thread. first page, second post.
so it seems you're actually not confused. (:

[RonPurewal]

Can you also please share some examples which used "due to" properly?

• if replacing "due to" with "caused by" creates a workable sentence, then "due to" is correct.

• if replacing "due to" with "because of" creates a workable sentence, then "due to" is incorrect.

presuming that you have an adequate understanding of "caused by" and "because of", any further examples would be superfluous-- especially given that you already provided, and correctly analyzed, a perfectly good example in your last post!

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, this distinction will NEVER be the only error in an official SC problem.
never ever ever.

see, this is a lot like the observation that "data" is a plural noun: it's a firm distinction, but only the most punctilious (and most formal) writers adhere to it %100 of the time.
GMAC takes pains to ensure that its problems are predicated on principles that are not only well defined, but also widely disseminated.

still-- if you are 100.00000000 per cent comfortable with this distinction and you see it in an official problem (e.g., #8 in OG 13th/2015 edition), then you can absolutely use it as a criterion for elimination.

[SandeepC340]

Hi Ron!

Does that mean the sentence " I suffered a fracture......" is correct in either ways with due to and because ... ' with one modifying the 'fracture' and the other modifying 'why I suffered' respectively?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

^^ at the level of understanding required for this exam, there's no meaningful difference.

[RonPurewal]

––– YOU DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING IN THIS POST FOR THE GMAT EXAM –––

in good writing, there's a subtle distinction between the two:
• "due to" suggests direct causation;
• "because of" can be used for direct causation, but also allows for more indirect causation.

e.g.,
Tom suffered financial hardship due to the loss of his job.
Tom suffered financial hardship because of the loss of his job.
these are both good sentences, for essentially the same reason as the "fracture" examples.

BUT...

Tom suffered financial hardship because of his lack of foresight.
this sentence makes sense.
note that the causation is indirect: lack of foresight --> poor decision-making and/or money management --> financial hardship.

Tom suffered financial hardship due to his lack of foresight.
this is NOT a well-written sentence.
whereas a "lack of foresight" can certainly predispose an individual to financial hardship, it cannot directly cause such hardship (as implied by "due to").

once again, this distinction is WAY too small to matter on this exam. i just included it because i'm a writer and it's fun to digress into such things from time to time.
(finally, if you DO absorb this difference and understand it 100.0000000%, you can cast a suspicious eye on any GMAT sentence that runs afoul of it. such a thing will never, ever, ever, EVER be the only problem in a GMAT SC item -- there should be far more fundamental issues in play -- but, all the same, the correct answers won't contain bad writing.)

––– YOU DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING IN THIS POST FOR THE GMAT EXAM –––

[AndyH539]

Hi Ron,
Always appreciate your explanation.
It truly helps alot.

Thanks!
Regards
Andy

Can you also please share some examples which used "due to" properly?

• if replacing "due to" with "caused by" creates a workable sentence, then "due to" is correct.

• if replacing "due to" with "because of" creates a workable sentence, then "due to" is incorrect.

presuming that you have an adequate understanding of "caused by" and "because of", any further examples would be superfluous-- especially given that you already provided, and correctly analyzed, a perfectly good example in your last post!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[RichaChampion]

Hello Ron sir,

D. Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
E. Due to an oversupply, with the result that computer chip prices have been sent plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
______________________________________________________

What I Know about due to is -
Due to modifies the Noun. In the light this Knowledge that I have gathered from this Link.

Technically due to is modifying Manufacturer and this Modification is correct, Right, but meaning wise this modification is Nonsensical, Right?

Still D is wrong why?

E has so many issue in E can you please comment on the structure

[RonPurewal]

Technically due to is modifying Manufacturer and this Modification is correct, Right, but meaning wise this modification is Nonsensical, Right?

i don't follow the red thing.
nonsense is ALWAYS incorrect... because it's nonsense.

[RichaChampion]

Sorry for Bumping this thread after 1 year.

Ron Sir,

Please see If my Postmortem for the INCORRECT options is correct or I have faltered at some places -

B. Because of plunging prices for computer chips, which is due to an oversupply
Modifier that starts with "which" here changes the meaning as if computer chips are due to an over supply.
Also,
I believe both the preceding subjects are in plural: plunging prices or computer chips - Therefore the singular "is" in the modifier doesn't make sense here.


You have done a fantastic discussion over one other problem on the usage of "because of".
Citation

Y because of X that means in the chronology of event the X must have occurred before the Y.

This is a modifier - which is due to an oversupply [,________,] = Non essential because it is in 2 commas.

X = Because of plunging prices for computer chips
Y = the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.

Uses of because of seems to be perfect here.





C. Because computer chip prices have been sent plunging, which resulted from an oversupply
Which seems to modify plunging here, but the intended subject to be modified was plunging chip prices.


D. Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply
There are 2 ways to tackle: "due to" Either replace it by "caused by" and see if it does works. Because due to and caused by are interchangeable.
or
Replace "DUE TO" by "because of" - If it works with because of that means "due to" is wrong. "BECAUSE OF" and "DUE TO" are not interchangeable.
Here "BECAUSE OF" works, thus, "DUE TO" is wrong.

E. Due to an oversupply, with the result that computer chip prices have been sent plunging
Not only is this sentence slightly wired, but redundant too. Due to and the modifier with_______ causes redundancy.


P.S. although I treat weirdness as a negative sign, Normally I do not make weirdness as a decision point.