Thanks David for such a clear detailed explanation.
Definitively, now D is looking better than A.

But can you please clarify one more thing.

Official explanation is saying that A is wrong because 'her' does not have a referent.
But
In this sentence, her can refer only to 'Aphra Behn'. It can not refer to anything else in this sentence.

Can you please clarify this point.

niksworth wrote:

prepgmat09 wrote: I agree. Now, I am not able to find any problem with A.

PS: As a side note, I think you examples above "Tarantino's offbeat movies have made him a huge star" contains a pronoun error. "him" does not have an antecedent in this sentence.

Actually both examples are structurally the same.
Possessive noun + verb + possessive pronoun + object complement.
1)Faulkner's books + made + him + famous.
2) Tarantino's offbeat movies + have made + him + a huge star.

Only difference between 1 and 2 is an additional modifier before the noun in 2.

Anyways, let us wait for the expert reply.

@niksworth, I didn't intend to point out a difference between your examples. What I meant was that I think you can't use "him" without the prior occurance of noun. In your example, because noun comes in possesive case, you might need to use the noun itself in place of the pronoun "him". A possessive noun cannot be an antecedent to an objective pronoun. It can be an antecedent to a possessive pronoun.
For example:

Faulkner's books made Faulkner famous. - Correct.
Faulkner's books + made + him + famous. - Wrong

Hope this is helpful.

Paes -

The difference is perhaps between "logically" clear and "grammatically" clear. Logically it can only be Aphra Behn - I completely agree. Grammatically though -- it is not what they are looking for...

Many thanks, David. Great explanation!

thanks David.

Thanks all. This has been an enlightening discussion.