Does anyone else remember being told at school to be very careful when using due to, because in some situations it could be grammatically wrong? I avoid using due to for that very reason, but today I decided to find out what the distinction is between due to and because of.

It turns out that due to acts as an adjective, which describes or modifies a noun. It can be replaced by caused by. It follows some form of the verb to be.

For example:

• The car accident was due to poor visibility. Due to modifies car accident
• Mary’s success is due to her hard work and dedication. Due to modifies success
• The café’s failure was due to lack of customers. Due to modifies failure

It also turns out that because of acts as an adverb which modifies a verb, so if you want to use because of in the above sentences, you need to add or change verbs that it could modify. It can be replaced by owing to.

For example:

• The car accident happened because of poor visibility. Because of modifies happened
• Mary succeeded because of her hard work and dedication. Because of modifies succeeded
• The café failed because of lack of customers. Because of modifies failed

More examples:

• We argued because of our political differences. Because of modifies the verb argued
• Our argument was due to our political differences. Due to modifies the noun argument
• The financial crisis occurred because of risky mortgage practices. Because of modifies the verb occurred
• The financial crisis was due to risky mortgage practices.  Due to modifies the noun crisis
• The horse escaped because of the broken gate. Because of modifies the verb escaped
• The horse’s escape was due to the broken gate.  Due to modifies the noun escape