GMAT Idiom: because vs. because of

UPDATE: You can find this blog and others about idioms in our new GMAT Idiom eBook!

First, a practice GMAT Sentence Correction question:

1) Because of Elnath Industries posting a second consecutive quarter of losses, its stocks tumbled 20% in the last three days.

(A) Because of Elnath Industries posting

(B) Because of Elnath Industries having posted

(C) Because Elnath Industries posting

(D) Because Elnath Industries posted

(E) Because Elnath Industries had been posting

Improve your GMAT score with Magoosh.



By itself, the word “because” is a subordinate conjunction.  What does that mean?  It means that this word introduces a subordinate clause.   A subordinate clause, like any clause, must have a complete [noun] + [verb] structure within it, like a mini-sentence: in fact, if you drop the subordinate conjunction, the rest of the subordinate clause should be able to stand alone as a sentence.  Furthermore, the fact that this clause is subordinate (i.e. dependent) means there must be another independent clause providing the meat-and-potatoes of the sentence.

The general outline of a sentence involving the word “because” might be:

Because” + [sub. noun] + [sub. verb], [main noun] + [main verb].

Of course, all kinds of adjectives, adverbs, and other modifiers can be added to this structure.   The [sub. noun] + [sub. verb] provide the structure of the subordinate clause, and could stand on their own as a complete sentence.  The sentence as a whole depends on the [main noun] + [main verb] as its core structure.  For example,

2) Because teenagers are insatiably hungry, their parents are always buying food.

Notice that the [noun] + [verb] within the subordinate clause, “teenagers are insatiably hungry”, could work as its own sentence: that’s a great trick to test a clause on the GMAT Sentence Correction.  Nevertheless, in this context, “their parents” is the main subject and “are … buying” is the main verb.


Because of

The words “because of” are a compound preposition.   Prepositions are designed to be followed by only a noun —- “because of the rain“, “because of the parade“, “because of the child’s temper tantrum“, etc.   The object of this or any preposition can be a gerund or gerund phrase —- “because of waiting for the senator“, “because of limited parking“, “because of having eaten out every night this week“, etc.  That last example is getting to the limit of how much action, how much story, the GMAT likes to pack inside a prepositional phrase.  On the Sentence Correction, the GMAT finds the following structure problematic

[preposition] + [noun] + [participle]

when it contains an “action word” participle.  Even though this could be grammatically correct in a technical sense, many would find this to be in poor taste, and for GMAT Sentence Correction purposes, this is 100% wrong.

Example “Because of the President going to Myanmar …” = WRONG!

As far as the GMAT is concerned, this is just too much action, too much story, for a preposition to handle.  If you are going to have both an action and the person/agent performing the action, then what you need is a clause, not merely a prepositional phrase.


Improve your GMAT score with Magoosh.


Having read this post, take another look at the practice sentence above before reading the explanation below.   Here’s another practice Sentence Correction question involving this idiom:



Practice question explanation

1) We have an actor & an action, so a preposition is not enough: we need a full [noun] + [verb] clause, which means we need the subordinate conjunction “because”.  The first two, with the preposition “because of”, are wrong.   Choice (C) involves the missing verb mistake — having a [noun] + [participle] in place of [noun] + [verb].  Only (D) & (E) have “because” + [noun] + [verb].   Choice (E) involves a very strange tense: the past perfect progressive — this is not at all required by or appropriate to the context.   Thus, the only possible correct answer is (D).


Ready to get an awesome GMAT score? Start here.

Most Popular Resources

15 Responses to GMAT Idiom: because vs. because of

  1. Rohit October 2, 2016 at 1:19 am #

    Dear Mike,

    Request you to please assist as I am really getting confused between the usage of “Because” and “Because of”.

    Now What I understand :

    1) Prepositions are designed to be followed by only a noun ,it can be a gerund or a gerund phrase .

    2) On the Sentence Correction, the GMAT finds the following structure problematic

    [preposition] + [noun] + [participle]

    when it contains an “action word” participle.

    What I infer is after a preposition we can either have a noun or a “action word” participle,we cannot have both together .

    on this note ,request you to please assist me knowing how is the usage of “Because of” ( I found this in the Idiom e-book)

    “Because of the uncertainty surrounding the new tax law being debated in congress,the stocks dropped for a third consecutive day”.

    After the preposition “Because of” we have “uncertainty ” followed by a action participle “surrounding”.

    Please guide me as I am stuck


    • Magoosh Test Prep Expert
      Magoosh Test Prep Expert October 18, 2016 at 8:42 am #

      Hi Rohit,

      I can’t seem to find that phrase in our idiom book–is it possible that you have an older version or copied it incorrectly? That phrase is definitely wrong because of the preposition+noun+participle issue that you mentioned. It’s possible that we had written that in an older version of the idiom ebook and have since corrected it! Here is the latest version available for free download: 🙂

      • Rohit October 20, 2016 at 1:29 pm #

        🙂 Thanks a lot

        • Magoosh Test Prep Expert
          Magoosh Test Prep Expert October 21, 2016 at 8:38 am #

          You’re very welcome 😀

  2. Sergey Kharlanov August 2, 2015 at 9:45 am #

    Hello Mike.

    In question about “Elnath Industries” we have two actions and one of the actions [posting of losses] cause another [stocks tumble]

    According to this article:
    we have a strict rule: “Whenever you are dealing with two events in the past, one of which started or happened before the other, you must use the past perfect tense to describe the event that started first.”

    And in correct answer we use just two simple past verbs. Why this is correct in this case?

    • Mike MᶜGarry
      Mike McGarry August 3, 2015 at 4:16 pm #

      Dear Sergey,
      I’m happy to respond. 🙂 My friend, never forget that meaning trumps grammar. Language ultimately exists to convey meaning, and so grammar is in every way subservient to meaning, not the other way around.
      We use the differentiation of past vs. past perfect when there is a meaningful difference in times between two actions, when the time difference between the two actions is part of the story being communicated by the sentence. If I say, “Yesterday I dropped a glass and it broke on the floor” — technically, there are two actions there that happen split-seconds apart, but it would be 100% ludicrous and wrong for anyone to use the past perfect for the first action. In terms of the information being communicated, we don’t care about the split-second difference in time: for practical purposes, for the purposes of the story told by the sentence, the two actions happened essentially at the same time. In other words, the time difference is meaningless and therefore must remain unacknowledged by the grammar.
      In much the same way, the two actions in the Elnath sentence, posting the losses and stocks tumbling, happen at more or less the same time. The stocks tumbling was an immediate effect of posting the losses: that’s what the sentence communicates. Even if technically there was a small time difference, maybe a 24 hour period, for the purpose of what the sentence is communicating, this time difference meaningless, and as above, any meaningless distinctions must remain unacknowledged by the grammar, because grammar is wholly subservient to meaning.
      My friend, be careful with “strict rules” of grammar. A rigid attachment to strict rules, disregarding questions of meaning, produces sheer nonsense, and the GMAT loves to design questions to punish people who follow such a path.
      Does all this make sense?
      Mike 🙂

      • Sergey Kharlanov August 4, 2015 at 3:00 am #

        Thank you Mike. Your answers always makes sense 🙂

  3. Arnav June 8, 2015 at 3:17 am #

    Hi Mike,
    The following principle
    On the Sentence Correction, the GMAT is adamantly opposed to the following structure:

    [preposition] + [noun] + [participle]

    Is this structure applicable for any prepositional structure or just in case of “because of”??

    thanks in advance.

    • Mike MᶜGarry
      Mike McGarry June 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm #

      Dear Arnav,
      I’m happy to respond. 🙂 I just changed the language slightly, because the situation is a bit more nuanced. Another typical preposition is “with“—
      With Congress passing this piece of legislation . . .” = WRONG
      What’s subtle is that for an action word in the participle, a participle that is telling us about an action, this construction is incorrect. BUT, if the participle is purely descriptive, then the construction is fine.
      Because of the President going to Myanmar …” = WRONG!
      (“going” is an action, and this participial phrase is trying to sneak the description of a full action into a preposition phrase!)
      Because of tassels hanging from the edge of his sleeve …” = perfectly fine, because “hanging” is not an action, merely a description.
      That’s a very subtle distinction. At some point, in the next couple of months, I will publish a blog article that says more about this distinction.
      Does all this make sense?
      Mike 🙂

  4. kinjal September 19, 2014 at 9:14 am #

    Because of Elnath Industries posting a second consecutive quarter of losses, its stocks tumbled 20% in the last three days

    I think there is a pronoun error. I think logically “its” refers to Elnath industries’. Can you please clarify?

    • Mike MᶜGarry
      Mike September 19, 2014 at 1:52 pm #

      Dear Kinjal,
      I’m happy to respond. 🙂 This is not an error, but this is gray area that you will NOT be expected to know for the GMAT. I wasn’t focused on the pronoun issue when I wrote the question, so I inadvertently included something in a gray area that the GMAT would not test.
      You see, sometimes nouns that appear plural are construed as singular. Here, I am suggesting that Elnath Industries is a single company with a single stock, so even through the name sounds plural, it is technically singular, and requires both a singular verb and a singular pronoun. The verb issue did not arise in this question, because the action is in the past tense. The words “statistics” and “linguistics” are non-proper nouns in this category: plural in form, but construed as singular. I have NEVER seen the GMAT actually test this point, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
      Does all this make sense?
      Mike 🙂

  5. JG April 6, 2014 at 12:34 am #

    Thanks for a great explanation.

    Can you tell me why we seem to be able to say:

    “I went to Tokyo because of work”

    but not:

    “I went to Tokyo because of a holiday”

    • Mike MᶜGarry
      Mike April 7, 2014 at 11:57 am #

      Dear JG,
      Here, we are getting into deeply contextual nuances that are not entirely related to what the GMAT tests. The former case implies a direct and unambiguous cause. If “I went to Tokyo because of work”, that implies that my boss said, essentially, “You must go to Tokyo.” In other words, there was something causal about my work situation that absolutely necessitated my trip to Tokyo, perhaps at the risk of my job.
      If during a holiday, I choose of my own free volition to take an enjoyable trip to Tokyo, then it would be wrong to say, “I went to Tokyo because of a holiday” — that latter construction implies a strict sequence of cause-and-effect. If I say “I went to Tokyo because of a holiday”, that would seem to imply that there was something about the nature of the holiday that, for some reason, utterly necessitated my trip to Tokyo, some external requirement beyond my free will. That’s not the case with pleasure trips.
      For example, sometimes I do say: “I traveled back east because of the Christmas holidays.” What I am implying there is that there is something causal, something beyond the operation of my spontaneous free will. Indeed, my family back east has non-negotiable expectations that I will make that trip every year, so phrasing it in that way points to the causal elements that are beyond my control. It doesn’t contradict the fact that I also want to go, of my own free will, but it points to the elements beyond my control.
      Does all this make sense?
      Mike 🙂

  6. deepika March 19, 2014 at 2:49 am #

    Thanks for the explanation;It’s very useful;

    • Mike MᶜGarry
      Mike March 19, 2014 at 9:56 am #

      Dear Deepika,
      You are quite welcome, my friend. I am very glad you found this helpful. Best of luck to you!
      Mike 🙂

Magoosh blog comment policy: To create the best experience for our readers, we will only approve comments that are relevant to the article, general enough to be helpful to other students, concise, and well-written! 😄 Due to the high volume of comments across all of our blogs, we cannot promise that all comments will receive responses from our instructors.

We highly encourage students to help each other out and respond to other students' comments if you can!

If you are a Premium Magoosh student and would like more personalized service from our instructors, you can use the Help tab on the Magoosh dashboard. Thanks!

Leave a Reply