Below Is an Argument from Analogy Along with a Proposed

Below is an Argument from Analogy along with a proposed disanalogy that might be used to object to it.
From the options, pick the best relevance test that could be used to determine if the difference cited by the disanalogy is morally relevant. [Pay attention to the way relevance tests are demonstrated in Doing Practical Ethics, Chapter 9.]
The argument:
1) It's wrong for a professional athlete to use illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
2) A college student handing in a paper they bought on the internet is relevantly similar to a professional athlete using illegal performance-enhancing drugs.
So, it's wrong for a college student to hand in a paper they bought on the internet.
Proposed disanalogy: while performance enhancing drugs could directly prevent others from placing as well in a race (there is only one first place medal) , a student doing well on a paper assignment because they turn in a purchased paper doesn't prevent others from doing as well on the paper.

A) Suppose there was a special term paper you could buy on the internet to hand in for your college class, but by buying it you would magically decrease your classmates' ability to write a good term paper. Would it still be wrong to buy this term paper and hand it in as your own? Yes! So, the difference is not relevant.
B) ^{Suppose there's a race that people participate in to try to get onto a professional} race team. Anyone who gets under a certain time will be considered for the team. One racer uses performance-enhancing drugs and gets under the time, thus earning consideration for the team, though they may not have if they hadn't used the drugs. This does not directly impact others' race times. But it is still clearly unfair to the other participants who followed the rules (and didn't use the drugs) . So, using the drugs is still wrong. Thus, the difference ismorally relevant.
C) It makes absolutely no difference whether cheating impacts others' performance or not. Either way, it's still wrong.
D) Suppose there's a race that people participate in to try to get onto a professional race team. Anyone who gets under a certain time will be considered for the team. One racer uses performance-enhancing drugs and gets under the time, thus earning consideration for the team, though they may not have if they hadn't used the drugs. This does not directly impact others' race times. But it is still clearly unfair to the other participants who followed the rules (and didn't use the drugs) . So, using the drugs is still wrong. Thus, the difference is notmorally relevant.