Since I seem to be on a roll with the theme of precision in language, here’s another example: the distinction between because of and due to. Due to and because of have very similar meanings. They both convey a reason or cause. Spoken English uses these constructions interchangeably. However, written English requires more precision.
The key in selecting the proper construction is the verb. Due to is appropriate when using linking verbs (often a conjugation of to be), whereas because of is appropriate with action verbs. Why is due to inappropriate with action verbs? For the simple reason that due to literally means caused by, meaning you should be able to replace due to with caused by and have a grammatically correct sentence.
Consider the example sentence in the cropped graphic above. At first glance, the sentence may appear fine. It even sounds somewhat distinguished. But replace due to with its equivalent construction and you get this:
Suppose that the example sentence instead read like this: