Dear Mo2men,

I'm happy to respond. How are you, my friend?

Your example sentence:
In her birthday party, Alison served cakes and drinks.
In this sentence, the placement of the pronoun is not only 100% correct but quite sophisticated. This is one of the many rhetorical devices that writers use to build tension in a sentence. The reader reads "In her birthday party . . ." and immediately wonders, "who?" This curiosity can drive the reader with curiosity to read the rest of the sentence. Skilled writers don't just want to dump information on the reader: they want to create structures that produce a sort of "intellectual current" that impels the reader through their work. This is one simple example. Obviously, with story-book topic about a child's birthday party is not that intellectually enthralling, but we could imagine more dramatic academic or historical use.
Before she traveled around the world in just 72 days in 1889-1890, . . .
After he conquered China, becoming its first non-native emperor, . . .
Though his last novel has be called both a "masterpiece" and "unreadable," . . .
In all three cases, the "antecedent" of the pronoun would follow the comma, coming long after the mention of the pronoun itself. In all three cases, as I think you will agree, the unidentified pronoun generates a certain curiosity that would compel the read to read the rest of the sentence.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Thanks Mike.
I do share the curiosity when it is written in such a style.

This is very complicated; the thing about D is that is succinctly expresses the idea. The modifier in C can be done away though the way D is written may sound wrong to a native's ear.

D

(C) Zhuangzi had a highly imaginative interpretation of Daoism, but this interpretation had less of an impact on the course of Chinese civilization than his contemporary Mengzi, whose interpretation of Confucianism was more influential

Compare "people" to "this interpretation" - NOPE

(D) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism

Correctly compare Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism to Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism.

Hi Mike,
Can you please elaborate on the use of had in option D. On one side we have didnot have, whereas on the other side we are using had

D) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as had his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism

I thought that option D would be correct if the sentence were written down in either of the below two formats-

1) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism did

2) Zhuangzi’s interpretation of Daoism, though highly imaginative, did not have as lasting an impact on the course of Chinese civilization as did his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation of Confucianism

Dear sunny91,

A great question, my friend! I'm happy to respond.

There are two issues here. The first is the placement of the verb: at the beginning, as in your (1), or at the end, as in your (2). Here's what I'll say. Version #1 is not wrong, but it's simplistic. Among native speakers, it's how we would expect a child or a relatively unsophisticated writer to phrase the information. Version #2 is inherently more sophisticated and elegant: putting the verb at the beginning has that spark the connotes an intelligent and sophisticated writer. Many many OAs on the GMAT SC have a similar spark to them.

Given that we are going to put the verb at the beginning, what verb to we use? Again, it's not wrong to use "did," but it's less desirable. The forms of the verb "to do" are the generic substitution for any verb, and it's certainly appropriate if there's a long or complicated predicate. See:
Repeating Verb Phrases on the GMAT
Thus, we always could use the generic substitute verb, but when we can, it's more elegant, a tighter and more unified sentence, to use the real verb, and if the real verb is just as short, then there's something almost jarring about using the substitute verb "to do" rather than the real verb.

Here, the real verb is "had," the opposite of "did not have." These are the positive & negative of the ordinary past tense.
I had an ice cream cone. My friend did not have one.
My friend had a dog when she was growing up, but I did not have one.
Coleridge had classical education, but Blake did not have such a background.
The opposite of "A did not have X" is simply "A had X." Those two forms imply each other, especially in a statement of contrast. And, again, it's much better to use the real verb, the contextual verb, rather than the generic substitute "did." Using the verb from in context helps to unify the sentence and give it coherences--also sparks that connote an intelligent and perceptive writer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Thanks Mike. The examples u provided really help me in understanding the construction.

Though you say "his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation" is equivalent to "the interpretation of his contemporary Mengzi", I still have doubt.
If we change the possessive form to "of form" it will look like the below-mentioned phrase not like the above-mentioned one.
his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation = his contemporary interpretation of Mengzi.
This is because it is talking about interpretation, not about the person who did it.

Here, I do not understand what exactly was your logic to say "his contemporary Mengzi’s interpretation" is equivalent to "the interpretation of his contemporary Mengzi". If you kindly explain.