Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging

Good question -- I should have addressed this issue in the original explanation. In theory, "which is due to an oversupply" could modify the entire phrase "plunging prices for computer chips" -- meaning-wise, that makes perfect sense, and I think it's OK for which to "reach back" behind the prepositional phrase here. The trouble is that (B) would still be wrong in that case, because the subject-verb agreement wouldn't work anymore: "plunging prices... IS due to an oversupply."

So either way, the modifier is wrong: if "which is due to an oversupply" modifies "computer chips", it's illogical, and if "which is due to an oversupply" modifies "plunging prices", the subject-verb agreement is unambiguously wrong.


I'm not quite sure that I understand the question, but I'll give it a shot. For starters, "that computer chip prices have been sent plunging" is a subordinate clause, not an independent clause. And "with" can modify all sorts of phrases: for example, in the phrase "I ate two burritos with great joy", "with great joy" modifies the entire phrase "I ate two burritos."

I hope this helps!

A is good, but one thing: there is a obsequies of events, but author uses Present perfect two times.
In my opinion it would be better if Past Perfect would be used for first event.

Because an oversupply of computer chips had sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.

Please somebody explain where I am wrong.
Thanks, BR

What a beautiful and logical explanation.
Thanks a lot.

Thank you so much for the kind words, jackspire! Glad that the explanations are useful sometimes.


A few thoughts, ilya56rus: first, the option you proposed isn't an option, so it's a non-issue! The best approach on SC is to find the four answers that are the most severely flawed. So it's not helpful to start coming up with alternative options that aren't even there -- at least not when you're taking an actual exam.

I understand where you're coming from, though. Trouble is, this actually wouldn't be correct on the GMAT:


The problem is that the past perfect tense verb ("had sent") can only be used as the first of two past actions. So for this to be correct, you would basically need to have some other verb in simple past tense. And we don't have that here: instead, "the manufacturer has announced" (present perfect tense, if you like the terminology) indicates an action that starts in the past and continues into the present.

And maybe there's an exception that I can't quite imagine, but it wouldn't really make sense to use the past perfect ("had sent") with the present perfect ("has announced"), since that last action would continue into the present.

But what about the actual version in the correct answer?


There's no problem there at all. Both actions in bold ("has sent prices plunging" and "the manufacturer has announced") started in the past and continue in the present -- or at the very least, we can easily imagine that the manufacturer's announcement continues to be relevant in the present. I suppose the phrase "has sent prices plunging" implies that prices are STILL plunging in the present, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Could we find better ways to write the sentence? Sure! In most cases, correct SC sentences aren't all that great, and a good editor would rip most of them to shreds. But there's nothing WRONG with (A), and there are plenty of flaws in the other choices.

I hope this helps!

The present perfect tense serves to express a PAST ACTION THAT AFFECTS THE PRESENT.
Example:
You do not need to give me directions to the city; I have traveled there many times.
Here, the present tense action in red is true because of the blue action.
Since the blue action happened in the past but affects the present, it is expressed in the present perfect tense.

OA: Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer...will cut production.
Here, the blue action affects the present because -- sometime AFTER THE PRESENT -- the company WILL cut production.
Since the blue action happened in the past but affects the present, it is expressed in the present perfect tense.

Hi Experts,

Out of above all rule based explanations, i have a small query regarding different approach to choose among options A & D:
-Can i think like, OVERSUPPLY is leading Manufacturer to cut the production, not the PLUNGING PRICES. So OVERSUPPLY should be the subject not the PLUNGING PRICES..!

Someone please explain, if this can be applied here..

Here are (A) and (D) again:

Yup, that sounds reasonable enough, appylov! I suppose that it's the oversupply -- or better still, the fact that the oversupply has sent prices plunging -- that caused the manufacturer to cut production. It's arguably not the plunging computer chip prices alone that caused the manufacturer to cut production.

I still think that it takes less effort to just recognize that "due to" is misused in (D), and I'm all about minimizing effort on SC. But I do agree with your analysis!

Hello Everyone!

This is an incredibly difficult question, so let's dive in! We'll figure out the best way to tackle this question, and narrow down options to find the right choice! Before we start, here is the original question, with the major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.

(A) Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging
(B) Because of plunging prices for computer chips, which is due to an oversupply
(C) Because computer chip prices have been sent plunging, which resulted from an oversupply
(D) Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply
(E) Due to an oversupply, with the result that computer chip prices have been sent plunging

So...it's clear that just about everything is different about each option. Whenever we run across questions like this, we know we're going to have to spend some extra time on it.

After a quick glance over the options, there are a couple things we can focus on to help narrow down our options:

1. Modifiers (Make sure they're in the right place and not misleading)
2. Because / Because of / Due to (Make sure they're used correctly)

Let's take a closer look at each option and focus on those two things for now:

(A) Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging
I don't see anything wrong with this yet. There are no modifiers, and the use of the conjunction "because" works here to clearly show cause and effect.

(B) Because of plunging prices for computer chips, which is due to an oversupply
This is INCORRECT because the modifier "which is due to an oversupply" is modifying "computer chips," which doesn't make sense. It's also not clear what "oversupply" is referring to - an oversupply of computer chips, or an oversupply of something else? So let's rule this one out!

(C) Because computer chip prices have been sent plunging, which resulted from an oversupply
This is INCORRECT because modifiers that start with the word "which" can ONLY modify nouns, and this one is trying to modify the verb phrase "have been sent plunging." It's also confusing to readers what the "oversupply" is - an oversupply of computer chips, or something else? If it's not 100% clear, the GMAT won't like it!

(D) Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply
This is INCORRECT because the modifier here doesn't work. Modifiers that start with "due to" modify NOUNS, and the closest noun is "the manufacturer." The manufacturer didn't plunge the computer chip prices - the oversupply did. It's also not clear what the "oversupply" is. We found ourselves asking "and oversupply of what??" This means that things aren't 100% clear, and we can rule it out.

(E) Due to an oversupply, with the result that computer chip prices have been sent plunging
This is INCORRECT because it also uses a "due to" modifier incorrectly. It should be modifying the prices plunging, not the manufacturer. It's also worded awkwardly. The GMAT doesn't like overly wordy phrases like "with the result that." They recommend you use something less complex and clearer for readers.

There you go - option A is our best choice after all! It doesn't have any problems with modifiers, and everything is written as clearly and concisely as possible!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Overall, (A) is the best sentence but I was really confused that "oversupply has sent prices plunging" is correct. For me, oversupply cant perform the action of sending something plunging but maybe its just because I'm a non-native speaker

It's a demand and supply gap concept.
Take the example of OIL.
Oil Oversupply is a situation in the oil and gas industry whereby an excessive amount of crude oil is available in the market for trade. This situation makes storage of crude oil difficult because of its surplus availability. An oversupply of any commodity is usually caused when demand is lower than the supply, resulting in the surplus of the commodity.

Oversupply of crude oil results in a surplus and ultimately leads to the larger amount of crude oil available in the market than its actual demand, i.e., it affects the demand and supply gap for crude oil. This results in the fall of the crude oil prices and related petroleum products.

source

What if the option (E) would have been : due to an oversupply of chips, the prices ---------- ???

The prices are not due to "an oversupply of chips", so we would still think twice before using a due to.

In the following example, the car itself is not caused by "an accident":
Due to an accident, his car...

VeritasKarishma egmat GMATNinja Could you please explain why C is wrong and what does "which" refer to in C?

I think you half-answered your own question!

"Which" can only modify a noun, and the only available noun to modify is "prices". But the "prices" themselves didn't result from an oversupply. We could say that the plunging of the prices resulted from an oversupply (in that case, "plunging" is a gerund that functions as a noun), but that's not what we have in (C).

As described in this post, in choice (C), "which" seems to modify the entire preceding verb phrase: "have been sent plunging". Since "which" can only be used to modify nouns, that doesn't work.

Ok my doubt can be stupid. In answer choice (b), modifier "which" can modify slightly far away noun "prices" which are plunging. Why this is not true? I agree that "plunging prices of" is better than "plunging prices for". But I see GmatNinja's post where has outrightly rejected (b) without looking at that a noun modifier can modify slightly far away noun as well.

Please help!

Have you checked out this post?

VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh GMATNinja

Please can you explain why in non underlined portion present perfect is used "has anounced"

Present perfect is used to denote action that started in past and have still effect in future

I'm not able to understand

Posted from my mobile device