A few observations about the discussion in this post. First of discussing just 2 choices without the knowledge of complete question is risky at best. Secondly, questioning whether 'and also' vs 'and'is correct without knowing the intent of the original sentence is not productive. Thirdly, the sentence whether has also or not, is incorrect because of the use of "due to".
ABC is remembered due to the fact...
"due to" cannot be used to explain the verb "is remembered".
Furthermore, "and also" can be used if the context demands so.
This season, Barcelona has allowed far fewer goals than Manchester United (21 to 37) during league play and also fewer shots on goal (23 to 34) in Champions League matches.
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 78942.html
1A- The standard procedures for publication department are intended to ensure consistency
and to minimize errors.
1B- The standard procedures for publication department are intended to ensure consistency
and also to minimize errors.
2A- Approval of standard procedures for publication department requires signatures of the chief editor
and the authors.
2B- Approval of standard procedures for publication department requires signatures of the chief editor
and also the authors.
As you can see in the first sentence pair, "and also" makes sense since the two elements in the list are not really obviously related - consistency and minimizing errors may be an obvious thing for people in manufacturing industry or for people who are involved with continuous process improvement but not for others.
However in the second sentence pair "and also" is not really required. That authors and chief editor will be involved in approving standard procedures appears to be more readily understood.
Again, my point here is that do not debate on such usage when really the context drives if the usage is correct or not. This is not a good use of your time and such exercises actually take you away from the very basis of sentence correction.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Payal
.........will wait for expert comments on the same.......
