Patient: Doctor, I read an article that claimed that the first few hou

Would like to know the source of the question. Not happy with any option.

The gist is that the patient feels that the "immediate after-birth mother-infant bond is very important in building a healthy relation." Perhaps like a necessary condition.
The doctor says that the absence of this bond does not harm the relation. This bond is not sufficient for healthy future relation. It does give a head start but many other factors are involved in a healthy future bond.

So it seems that the doc says that absence of this bond is not necessary and there are other important factors too.

(A) doesn't seem appealing. The analogy it talks about is the "instant glue" one. The doctor introduces and rejects it to reduce patient's concern. But one would think that the analogy should have been given by the patient and she should be the one rejecting it to reduce patient's concern.

(B) She cites evidence to show that the patient’s worry is unfounded.

No evidence is given by her.

(C) She misinterprets the patient’s explanation of her concern.

The patient seems to feel that this bond is necessary for future relation and the doctor tries to convince that it is not sufficient for future relation (other factors are involved too). In this way it could be said that the doctor misinterprets the patient's explanation of her concern.

(D) She establishes that the article that the patient read was in error.

She does not "establish" that the article was erroneous. She takes a tangent explanation to alleviate the patient's concerns.

(E) She names other factors that are more important in creating a mother-infant bond.

She does not say "more important". She just says that many factors are involved.