Second, the consumers with most money have the greatest pull in the market. As a result, resources may be devoted to producing luxuries for the rich to the exclusion of necessities for the poor. While this is really brought about by the unequal distribution of wealth and income rather than by the market system, the fact is that the latter tends to produce, and even to increase, such inequality.

Why isn't at used, or some other preposition? What are the similarities and differences?

Source: p 118, Mastering the National Admissions Test for Law, Mark Shepherd

  • 3
    I think the to could be changed to at and the sentence's meaning would stay the same. There are some cases where more than one preposition can be used; I think you've found one of them.
    – J.R.
    Sep 8, 2014 at 8:36

1 Answer 1


to the exclusion of someone or something is a set phrase; an idiom, if you will. It's always used with to. Check out this dictionary entry: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/to-the-exclusion-of


You must log in to answer this question.