Hello Sunny Flower. How are you? Let's look at A: "I HAVE GONE there for three days...etc." This is a poor phrasing, because it suggests NOT that you were there for 3 days, but you travelled for 3 days just to get there. B seems a possible good choice, which reads: "I _have been ____ there for three days with my parents last month. (but C looks like it might work also ). Let's look at C: "I WENT there for three days...etc." This presents the same difficulty as A. It presents the idea that you were travelling for 3 days, not that you were there for 3 days. Let's look at C: "I WAS there for three days...etc." I like this the most, owing to its utter simplicity. It has no indication of 3 days of travel. It clearly and plainly shows that you were visiting with your parents, in Shanhai, for 3 days. For clarity, I think C to be the very best answer.

Personally I would say option A is wrong; option B is a little awkward, but would sound fine if it was just 'I have been there for 3 days' and disregarding the rest of the sentence and dialogue; option C and D are interchangeable for me as both is right and answers the first line of dialogue naturally.

In this context I would say "I was there for three days........" A -- definitely not correct B -- not correct, but would be understood C -- this would be correct but wouldn't sound as good as D

C. went. In the case a specific time in the past is referenced, use simple past tense.