Is it better to use because of or due to?

The distinction between “because of” and “due to” is rather often disregarded. In particular, many speakers use “due to” incorrectly. However, a statement, and its speaker, are more likely to be taken seriously if they use these phrases correctly.

“Because of …” modifies, by explaining, a verb; it functions as an adverb. For example:

The drink is fizzy because of dissolved carbon dioxide. The machine stopped because of a power failure.

In these examples, the verbs “is” and “stopped” are explained by the “because of ...” phrase.

“Due to …” modifies, by explaining, a noun; it functions as an adjective. For example:

The fizziness of the drink is due to dissolved carbon dioxide. The stoppage of the machine was due to a power failure.

In these examples, the nouns “fizziness” and “stoppage” are explained by the “due to …” phrase.

Since “due to …” functions as an adjective, it may also be used attributively. For example:

The fizziness of the drink due to dissolved carbon dioxide is pleasant. The stoppage of the machine due to a power failure was inconvenient.

However, when used attributively, the phrase follows, not precedes, the noun that it modifies.

An example of incorrect use of “due to …” is the following:

***Due to the traffic accident, Tom arrived late to work.***

This is incorrect, because Tom was not a consequence of the accident. Rather, the phrase is incorrectly intended to modify the verb “arrived”. The phrase “Due to …” is never correct at the beginning of a sentence.

The correct statement of the intended meaning is:

Because of the traffic accident, Tom arrived late to work.