Sentences containing "refused to close his bar because"



a. He refused to close his bar because of the pandemic.

b. He refused to close his bar because there was a pandemic.

Are the above sentences grammatically correct, and do they make sense?

The intended meaning is:

  1. He had to close his bar because of the pandemic and he refused to do it.

and not

  1. Because of the pandemic, he refused to close his bar.

I think both (a) and (b) are technically ambiguous, but within the given context, the absurd meaning would be immediately rejected.


Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 1 053

18I can't put my finger on it, but I would read (a) as "He refused to close the bar despite the pandemic", but for b) it registered as the absurd meaning first. Although technically, both are the same. I can't exactly tell you why they sound different, to me at least. – Polygnome – 2020-08-10T11:27:31.213

1He refused to open or close his bar because of the pandemic. I see nothing wrong with it at all. Of course, it could be rewritten all sorts of way. Both work semantically. – Lambie – 2020-08-12T20:41:04.303



Both of the sentences are grammatical, but you're right that they are either ambiguous or don't mean what you want them to mean.

To make the meaning explicitly clear, use despite instead of because:

  • He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic.

Alternatively, it could be said in the following ways::

  • He refused to let the pandemic close his bar.
  • He refused to close his bar during the pandemic.

Jason Bassford

Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 34 584

21"He refused to let the pandemic close his bar" sounds more like he worked hard and took steps to make sure he was able to keep operating through the pandemic, rather than refusing a mandatory order to close. – crazyloonybin – 2020-08-10T12:51:36.513

1@crazyloonybin If you want to be specific, you can replace pandemic with mandatory pandemic directives (or something like that). But that's a different question. (Note that it wouldn't make sense to use such a replacement in the third example sentence I provided.) – Jason Bassford – 2020-08-10T17:36:07.450

in spite of might be appropriate also, depending on whether the bar owner is deliberately defying [common sense/a lawful order to close] or not. – asgallant – 2020-08-10T18:47:04.513

@asgallant Yes. Despite and in spite of are strong synonyms. – Jason Bassford – 2020-08-10T20:05:51.093

1Maybe it's local to me (New England), but X in spite of Y implies that the act X was done with spite towards Y, whereas X despite Y implies the act X was done without regard for Y. The difference can be seen with "Karen did not wear a face mask despite the pandemic" vs "Karen coughed in the faces of store patrons in spite of the pandemic". – asgallant – 2020-08-10T22:36:36.937

4@asgallant "in spite of" does not mean "spitefully" as far as I'm aware. – CJ Dennis – 2020-08-10T22:50:06.593

@asgallant The sense of spitefulness, as far as I'm aware, would be *to* spite X or *out of* *spite for X*. – Jason Bassford – 2020-08-10T23:44:04.400

Like I said, it could be a regional thing. – asgallant – 2020-08-11T02:23:34.673

It should be "He refused to close his bar, despite the pandemic." – Acccumulation – 2020-08-11T02:51:48.317

@Acccumulation It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Without the comma (which is how I interpret it), the information is essential. With the comma, it becomes nonessential and parenthetical. But that's not the meaning that's been emphasized in the question; if it were, there would have been a comma before because in the original example sentences. Or you could be someone who doesn't ascribe to commas making a difference to the meaning, in which case it doesn't matter if there's a comma or not. – Jason Bassford – 2020-08-11T03:39:02.077

Why should it be anything other than what it says? I refuse to listen because of my attitude.I refuse to open my restaurant because of the pandemic. – Lambie – 2020-08-12T20:39:01.643

Yes, both are grammatically correct but ambiguous, because it's not clear whether the pandemic is the cause of the closure or the cause of the refusal. But these attempts to disambiguate don't fully solve the problem. "Despite" could still relate either to the act of closing or to the refusal. I would expand the sentence: "He was asked to close his bar because of the pandemic, but he refused". There's still an ambiguity as to whether the pandemic was the reason for the asking or for the closing, but it now makes very little difference to the sense. – Michael Kay – 2020-08-13T10:22:17.300


He refused to close his bar because of the pandemic.
He refused to close his bar because there was a pandemic.

He gave the pandemic as a reason for refusing to closing his bar.

He refused to close his bar [just] because of the pandemic.
He refused to close his bar [just] because there was a pandemic.

Even though there was a pandemic happening, he refused to close his bar. He explicitly denied that as a good enough reason for closing his bar. He played down the seriousness of the pandemic and decided not to shut his bar.

However, the meaning you are after is most likely "despite"

He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic.
He refused to close his bar despite there being a pandemic.

So, yes, both original sentences are grammatical, but their strict literal meaning is not the same as their looser assumed meaning. Some people would reject the "absurd" reason, but others wouldn't. "Before the pandemic happened he was planning on retiring and closing his bar, but then he thought it would be a place of refuge, so he refused to close his bar because of the pandemic." Just because we don't agree with someone else's thinking, doesn't mean we should label it "absurd" and assume they could never think it, and assume that other people wouldn't find it reasonable either.

CJ Dennis

Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 3 832

Or even, "Despite the pandemic, he refused to close his bar." – David K – 2020-08-11T12:56:37.613

He refused to close his bar just because there was a pandemic. There's no need to rephrase with despite; adding just clears up the intent. – Rich – 2020-08-12T20:39:34.393

I don't think adding "just" removes the ambiguity at all. All it achieves is to say that the pandemic was the only reason, there was no other. It doesn't help us know whether the pandemic was the reason for the closure or the reason for the refusal; we're still left to guess on the basis that pandemics are more likely to cause closure than to cause refusal. – Michael Kay – 2020-08-13T10:26:31.140


To my ear the first tends to the intended, and the second to the "absurd" meaning. The reason is that structurally they are both ambiguous and admit both meanings.

For example:

He refused to close his bar because there was a horde of thirsty patrons.

Here the contextual hint makes it clear that the "absurd" construction is meant.


He refused to close his clinic, because of the medical needs caused by the pandemic. (I used a comma here too, as an extra hint.)

To disambiguate you have several choices. There is nuance in them though.

He refused to close the bar... ...despite the pandemic. - indicates that there is force in the reason, but it is overridden. ...for a mere pandemic. - indicates that he considers pandemics minor. ...just for the pandemic. - more reason would be needed. ...for this pandemic. - maybe for some other pandemic, and so forth.

Rich Farmbrough

Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 131


Both your versions are ambiguous since “because” could attach either to “refused” or to “close”. Adding extra words after “because” doesn’t solve that problem.

A reader faced with this will likely conclude that “because” attaches to the nearer of the two verbs, which is also (I hope) the intended meaning. We see how this works when we move “because” nearer to “refused” and the absurd meaning now seems more likely:

  • He refused because of the pandemic to close his bar.
  • Because of the pandemic, he refused to close his bar.

Because the writer didn’t do this, we can assume the non-absurd meaning was intended.

If you change “because” to “despite”, all of the interpretations have the same meaning, so this would be preferred:

  • He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic.
  • He refused despite the pandemic to close his bar.
  • Despite the pandemic, he refused to close his bar.


Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 1 972

I don't think "despite" helps, it's still ambiguous. "He closed his bar despite the pandemic" and "He refused despite the pandemic" both make sense (logically if not epidemiologically), and "He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic" could mean either. – Michael Kay – 2020-08-13T10:34:06.790


A) is perfect idiomatic English and means what you think it does. His course of action is to stay open, the pandemic was a negative in that decision, but not negative enough.

The idiom is a negated negative-sounding word (examples below) followed by "because of". Whatever comes next is a reason against, but not strong enough. I did a search for some examples using: [don't "because of a"]. You can see they follow the pattern:

"Don't miss out because of a first impression", "Don't ruin a good today because of a bad yesterday", "Don't punish all who need help because of a few who cheat", "Don't turn away business because of a pet!", "Don't quit because of a vindictive person". I also found "I'm not going to lose him because of money". Losing is bad, not losing is a double-negative, so it's understood to be a lack of money, not that they will use their vast wealth to keep him.

Over to B). That's not as good since it's nothing special. They avoided using the well-understood "because of". Maybe they avoided it since that's not what they meant to say. So now we have to decide whether the pandemic was a a positive tipping factor, or a not-good-enough reason against.

For a contrasting examples, suppose some music started playing, after which we decided to stay where where we are. "I'll stay because of the music" is easy -- it's the reason we're staying. "I won't leave because of the music" means we're staying in spite of it. "I won't leave because that music is playing" is less clear and probably only makes sense in a larger context.

Owen Reynolds

Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 262

4It's not really a double-negative. "close" has a negative meaning, but it's not grammatically negative. – Acccumulation – 2020-08-11T02:54:02.293

@Acccumulation Hmmm...I 'm noticing you didn't have a better name for it either. I'll try "negated negative-sounding word" and abbreviation "negated negative" (negative is still wrong there, but doesn't have the baggage of double-negative). – Owen Reynolds – 2020-08-12T17:37:37.657


A and B don't necessarily make sense.

Both mean that he didn't close his bar BECAUSE of the pandemic. Which would mean, due to the pandemic, he didn't close his bar. That isn't true.

The simplest and a good way to put it is "Even though there was a pandemic going on, he didn't close his bar"


Posted 2020-08-10T02:03:01.570

Reputation: 54