Turn a whole clause into a short phrase to vary your sentences without adding grammar risk.
Preview · progress not saved — Chapter 1 is free
One sentence written twice. Something was removed — decide whether anything was lost with it.
Because the cost of materials has risen sharply, the programme has been delayed.
Owing to the sharp rise in material costs, the programme has been delayed.
What was removed, and was anything lost?
Removed: a subject and a finite verb — the cost … has risen. The subordinate clause has become a prepositional phrase.
Lost: nothing. The cause is still there, the sharpness is still there, the delay is still there. Twelve words became nine and the meaning is intact.
The patterns, the register warnings, and the one situation where the long clause is the right answer.
given is the flexible one, and the most useful. It takes either a noun phrase or a that-clause:
Given the shortage of staff, … · Given that staff are in short supply, …
That flexibility is why it is worth learning first: when you cannot compress the content into a noun, you can still use the frame.
in light of takes a noun phrase only, and carries a specific shade the others do not — it means because of this new information. It belongs with findings, evidence, a report, a ruling. In light of the delay is odd; in light of the review's findings is exactly right. Both in light of and in the light of are current; the second is more common in British writing.
owing to takes a noun phrase only and is the plainest of the three. On owing to versus due to: there was once a rule that due to modifies a noun and owing to modifies a clause. That distinction has largely eroded and no examiner will mark you on it. It is mentioned here only so that meeting it in a style guide does not worry you.
Sixteen connectors. Sort them by what can legally follow — this is where the visible errors are.
Sort each item into the correct category
Six clauses and six compressed equivalents. Watch the two conditions that run in opposite directions.
Terms
Definitions
Three chains. Twice the compression wins, and once the long clause was carrying the argument.
Chain 1
The long version: If there is no statutory duty to report, most firms will not report voluntarily.
Candidates: given / absent
Step 1 — Which way does the condition run: does the duty exist, or not?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: a statutory duty to report, most firms will not do so voluntarily.
Chain 2
The long version: Because we now know what the inquiry established, the department's position is harder to defend.
Candidates: owing to / in light of
Step 1 — What kind of object does the sentence give you?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: the inquiry's findings, the department's position is harder to defend.
Chain 3
The long version: Because the regulator was warned in 2016, warned again in 2018, and took no action until 2019, the delay cannot be explained by ignorance.
Candidates: given the earlier warnings / keep the full clause
Step 1 — What would the compression remove, and can the argument spare it?
Step 2 — Therefore the expert writes: the regulator was warned in 2016, warned again in 2018, and took no action until 2019, the delay cannot be explained by ignorance.