Render
There are no analogies there; in fact, the doctor agrees with the patient, or, to be correct, with the article (Having your infant with you during the period immediately after birth does give your relationship a head start).
I think the answer is B, since she cites that there are other factors which influence the relationships between a mother and her child, which is evidence against the patient's worry.
Render - first, welcome to GMAT Club!
Second, there
is an analogy, but maybe the words "instant glue" were not clear.
The doctor does not agree with the article.
-- Doctor: Your relationship [despite your not having instant contact with your baby after birth]
has not been harmed. ANALOGY: "Immediate bonding after birth" is not similar to "instant glue" in which one thing is sealed to another immediately, very strongly, and perhaps permanently by that instant glue.
-- With respect to answer B, please see my post
HERE.
Offering an opinion is not the same as citing evidence.
Further, a "head start" simply means that the bonding starts earlier in time.
-- Suppose that two people are not racing against one another but both runners want to finish a 10K "race."
Person A starts at the gun.
Person B shows up 5 minutes late.
Person A has a head start on B — but B can still run the face and finish in the time it would have taken him anyway.
-- The implication of "head start" can mean "better in the long run," but given all the other things that the doctor says, in this context it means simply "started earlier, but that does not matter because
building requires an ongoing process
that can be initiated immediately after or a few days after birth."
I can see why (B) is tempting, but in this question the authors have done what GMAC does:
present tempting alternatives that upon reflection, do not really fit or do not fit nearly as well as (A).

"Instant glue" seems like a new concept or maybe i am not familiar with it. Could you please throw some more light on it?