Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging

Debatable. It might take more than one read to figure out what's going on. Initially, a reader might wonder, what is from the oversupply? But could you argue that "plunging prices from an oversupply" implies that the oversupply is causing the price decrease? And could you also argue that this interpretation is logical? Maybe.

So you're right that the construction isn't 100% clear, but I'd be hesitant to treat it as a concrete error, since there's no rule that says you have to have "resulting" with "from."

It's to notice the that the usage of "due to" is a problem in (D). Clearly, a "manufacturer" can't be due to "plunging chip prices," so we've got a definitive logical error. If we didn't see this issue, could we use the construction you noted as a tie-breaker since (A) is clearer? Sure. Just make sure you don't treat the use of "from" without "resulting" as an ironclad error.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________

Thanks, that's absolutely clear!

I know there is no rule for "resulting from", but "from" by itself seems open to misinterpretation. Of course, there are other alternatives, e.g., "caused by" would have been as good as "resulting from".

But your explanation to use it as a tie-breaker addresses my question exactly!

Amazing question. Meaning, modifiers, due to vs because everything is covered!

GMATNinja, any other experts
Is it correct to eliminate (B) just because it uses "plunging prices for computer chips" rather than "plunging prices of computer chips"?