"through lack of..." and "due to lack of..."

[Tofu]

Hello Alan, Mister Micawber, Beeesneees, Mordant, Esl_Expert and other native English speakers,

-------------------------------
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/wayside
Proposals for the new service fell by the wayside through lack of public support.

http://tinyurl.com/2ddzkr5
FAIZABAD: Residents of northeastern Badakhshan province said that two pregnant women and five children were died due to lack of facilities in the provincial hospitals.
-------------------------------

- through lack of...
- due to lack of...
Are these interchangeable?

[Mordant]

Cause vs. means

"Through" and "due to" are not always interchangeable. The former means "by means of" and the latter "because of." Those things certainly aren't always the same.

The economic rebound effort succeeded through increased federal spending and tax cuts.
The economic rebound effort succeeded due to increased federal spending and tax cuts.

It works there because the means used to create the rebound also happen to be its direct cause.

Her father paid for her wedding through bank loans.
*Her father paid for her wedding due to bank loans.

The first idea is that loans were his means of payment. - How he did it.
The second idea, insensible, is that bank loans caused him to pay for the wedding.

If the cause is a means or the means a cause, they can be swapped. They often cannot be.

[Tofu]

Thank you, Mordant.

I'm still very confused. The word "through" means "by means of; because of." Here are some examples:
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/through
- You can only achieve success through hard work.
- It was through him (= as a result of his help) that I got the job.
- The accident happened through no fault of mine.

Proposals for the new service fell by the wayside through lack of public support.
Does through means "by means of," not "because of"?

[Mordant]

Through vs. Due to
Directly How vs. Directly Why

If the sentence can answer how or why after the swap, it works.

Either preserves the meaning of the very last sentence. The same is true of the first three.

The second example, however, can suggest a more direct link between him and the job than "I got the job due to (or because of) him." The latter works well even if he merely gave some good advice years ago that motivated me. If that were the case, though, I would not say "I got the job through him."

"Through" is for a very direct cause. It is the direct path to the result. "Because of" must directly answer why.

Her father paid for her wedding through bank loans. - How he paid.
*Her father paid for her wedding due to bank loans. - Wrong because the bank loans are not WHY he paid for her wedding.

But

Her father was able to pay for her wedding through bank loans. - How he was able to pay.
Her father was able to pay for her wedding due to bank loans. - Why he was able to pay.

Since the meaning of the sentence holds up well despite a swap, you can get away with it easily here.

Through vs. Due to
Directly How vs. Directly Why

If the sentence can answer how or why after the swap, it works.

[Tofu]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2744919/lsu_baseball_shows_they_are_capable.html
The LSU baseball team is hosing William and Mary this weekend in a series of games which was scheduled to start on Friday night. Friday's game was canceled due to heavy rain.

There is a direct link between the cancellation and the rain. Should due to be "through"?

[Mordant]

You could use "through," Tofu, but I wouldn't.

[Tofu]

Hi Mordant,
Although there is a "direct" link between the cancellation and the rain, you wouldn't use "through." Using "through" and "due to / because of" correctly is very difficult.

[Mordant]

Tofu, that would be correct. That is just a matter of personal preference. As I said before, they are not mutually exclusive.