was due to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was due to" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you're trying to explain why something happened. For example: The company's success was due to the hard work of their employees.

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Academia

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

"This consultation was due to resume today.

Independent

The difference was due to groundwater.

The New Yorker

This rule was due to be scrapped.

The Economist

It was due to re-open today.

Independent

His silence was due to his arrest.

Independent

Tirana's airport was due to reopen.

The Economist

Trading was due to resume on Friday.

The New York Times

The work was due to begin this year.

The Economist

It was due to lack of defending".

The Guardian - Sport

It was due to expire Dec. 15.

The New York Times

She was due to graduate in August.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "was due to", ensure that the cause you are identifying is clear and directly related to the effect you are describing. Avoid ambiguity by providing sufficient context.

Common error

While often interchangeable, "due to" is technically more correct when it modifies a noun, whereas "because of" modifies a verb. However, this distinction is often blurred in modern usage, so context is key.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was due to" functions as a causal connector, linking an effect to its cause. As Ludwig AI confirms, it's used to explain why something happened, demonstrating a relationship of cause and effect between two elements in a sentence. Examples show its use in various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

48%

Science

26%

Academia

14%

Less common in

Formal & Business

6%

Unknown/unmatched sources

6%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was due to" serves as a common and grammatically sound way to express causation. Ludwig AI indicates that it is perfectly acceptable to use when explaining why something occurred. With a neutral register, it fits diverse contexts such as news, scientific reports, and academic papers. Though phrases like "resulted from" or "stemmed from" offer variety, "was due to" remains a clear and widely understood choice for indicating cause and effect. Its frequency and consistent application across authoritative sources underscore its reliability in formal and informal communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was caused by

A more direct and straightforward way of indicating causation.

resulted from

Indicates a direct consequence or outcome of a specific action or event.

was a consequence of

Highlights the cause-and-effect relationship between events.

was brought about by

Emphasizes the role of a specific agent or factor in causing something.

stemmed from

This phrase implies that something originated or developed from a particular source or cause.

can be ascribed to

Suggests that something is attributed or assigned to a specific cause or reason.

is attributable to

Suggests that something can be credited or blamed on a particular cause.

arose from

Similar to 'stemmed from' but suggests a more gradual or organic development.

derived from

Indicates that something is obtained or developed from a particular source or origin.

originated in

Focuses on the origin or starting point of something.

FAQs

How can I use "was due to" in a sentence?

Use "was due to" to explain the reason or cause behind a specific event or condition. For example, "The delay "was due to" unforeseen circumstances".

What are some alternatives to "was due to"?

Alternatives include "resulted from", "was caused by", or "stemmed from", depending on the nuance you want to convey.

Is it correct to start a sentence with "Due to"?

While starting a sentence with "Due to" is common, some grammarians prefer using "Because of" at the beginning of a sentence to avoid potential ambiguity. Consider the context and your audience.

What's the difference between "was due to" and "was because of"?

While the meanings are very similar, "was due to" is traditionally used when referring back to a noun, whereas "was because of" explains the reason for a verb or action. However, this distinction is frequently blurred in everyday usage, making them largely interchangeable.