Can 'Due to XXX' modify an idea?

[yongwookl716]

The sentence's meaning is unclear due to and extended sequence of prepositional phrases


Is the above sentence correct?

I recall that 'due to XXX' only modify nouns, so should "due to" be replaced by "because of"?

The sentence is from OG verbal supplement 2nd, but it's not a sentence from one of the SC answer choices, it's actually from the answer explanation part -- explaining why answer choice (C) is wrong. So I hope it's fine to ask it in this forum.

[tim]

It's probably best not to pay attention to sentences that don't show up as actual SC problems. Actual SC problems are specifically engineered to test specific topics with some degree of precision, so looking at random sentences that don't have five answer choices isn't going to help as much as dealing with actual SC problems.

[RonPurewal]

you're right; that sentence would be unacceptable in an SC problem.

remember——the actual SC problems go through many rounds of careful editing; GMAC actually spends more than a thousand dollars per problem on this editing.
obviously the same exquisite care is not going to be lavished on any of the other sentences in the book.

[RonPurewal]

... and, moreover, the OG answer keys are written by people who, to be brutally honest, just aren't as good as the people who write the questions.
(e.g., if an OG explanation ever relies on classifying a choice as "wordy" and/or "awkward", then what's really happening is that the writer just doesn't know how to convey what's actually wrong with that choice.)

[yongwookl716]

Thank you all.

I just wanted to check if my memory serves me right!

[yongwookl716]

... and, moreover, the OG answer keys are written by people who, to be brutally honest, just aren't as good as the people who write the questions.
(e.g., if an OG explanation ever relies on classifying a choice as "wordy" and/or "awkward", then what's really happening is that the writer just doesn't know how to convey what's actually wrong with that choice.)

, this fact is really interesting

[RonPurewal]

this fact is really interesting

eh. really, this is just basic business sense.

your "superstars" only have X number of work hours available, so you want them to spend all X of those hours doing things that your other employees/contractors can't do.

e.g., if you own a restaurant and you hire a master chef, you won't make the master chef spend time cleaning the floors; you'll hire someone else to do that (for much less money!). so that your master chef can spend his/her time being a master chef.