<p>A specific diction error: due to versus because of:
There are some less conservative
grammar sources that support the interchangeability of due to and because of. Nonetheless, most references maintain the distinction, and it is possible that this could appear on the SAT. Luckily, the rule is straightforward: due to functions adjectively, and because of functions adverbially. That is, due to modifies nouns; because of modifies verbs. Consider this lot of examples; in each case the phrase that I choose is the only correct one, according to this distinction:</p>
<p>My failure was due to my lack of success.
I failed because of my lack of success.
That is due to his pet snake.</p>
<p>I said that because of my pet snake's forcing me to do so. Because of the weather, I am hungry.
My hunger is due to the weather.
This means that the only time that one can grammatically begin a sentence with Due to is when a
participial phrase is being employed, as in:
Due to the weather, the storm went home.
If we are following the technical distinction, we know that the storm is due to the weather, but we
do not know why the storm went home. If, however, the writer is not following the rule, the storm
could have gone home because of the weather. This latter meaning "should" have been communicated
thus:
Because of the weather, the storm went home.
I guess we'll never know.</p>
<p>Can you guys explain to reasons or a simpler reason of when to use each thing. Can you give me a reason for which is which? I know the answer but I need to understand what is being modified in each sentence</p>
<p>This rule has not been tested on the SAT to the best of my knowledge. You probably shouldn’t worry about it.</p>
<p>Because of comes after a verb.</p>
<p>Due to comes after a noun.</p>
<p>The <em>WEATHER</em> was due to the harsh sun.
The weather <em>WAS</em> sunny because of the harsh sun.</p>
<p>I’m sorry I can’t give you any better examples. But as IceQube said, this discriminating nuance is hardly tested on the SAT.</p>
<p>“Due to” means " caused by". You should only use “due to” when you can substitute the words “caused by” and it will make sense.</p>
<p>Here’s an example I searched up: “Care should be taken when stapling and routing this cable as digital signals can suffer losses “due to” sharp bends or cable constriction.”</p>
<p>Now if we replace “Due to” with caused by, it would make sense:
Care should be taken when stapling and routing this cable as digital signals can suffer losses “caused by” sharp bends or cable constriction.</p>
<p>Let’s take your examples: </p>
<p>My failure was due to my lack of success.
“My failure was caused by my lack of success.” It works, so due to is correct.</p>
<p>I failed because of my lack of success.
“I failed caused by my lack of success.” Doesn’t make sense, so due to will not work here.</p>
<p>What is there is a verb before it and a noun after it than would it be due to or because of. And does the caused by rule work everytime?</p>
<p>Yes, try it with your example:</p>
<p>My hunger is due to the weather. “My hunger is caused by the weather.”</p>
<p>Here’s an SAT question from barron’s.</p>
<p>“By the time” the bank guard closed the doors, a riot “had erupted” “due to” the long lines and “shortage of” tellers. Replace due to with caused by, and see if it works.</p>
<p>By the time the bank guard closed the doors, a riot had erupted “caused by” the long lines and shortage of tellers.</p>
<p>It’s incorrect and doesn’t flow with the sentence. Use because of instead.</p>
<p>Hopefully, it’s clear now</p>