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) A state should provide all citizens with access to basic education.
2) A state providing access to basic healthcare is relevantly similar to a state providing access to basic education.
Therefore, a state should provide all citizens with access to basic healthcare.
Proposed disanalogy: while everyone needs the same amount and type of basic education, people don't all need the same type and amount of basic healthcare.

A) It doesn't matter whether everyone has the same needs or not, because the state should still provide each person with what they need. So, the difference
Is not morally relevant.
B) Suppose you live in a society where people have very different educational needs. Some people are born able to do algebra, read complex texts, or design scientific experiments, while others need to learn that through instruction. (Everyone still needs to learn something -- no one is born knowing everything they need to know.) In this case, should the state still provide everyone with access to basic education? Yes. So, the difference is morally relevant.
C) Suppose you live in a society where people have very different educational needs. Some people are born able to do algebra, read complex texts, or design scientific experiments, while others need to learn that through instruction. (Everyone still needs to learn something -- no one is born knowing everything they need to know.) In this case, should the state still provide everyone with access to basic education? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.
D) Suppose that everyone in society was born with the exact same medical needs.
They got sick at the same time, with the same conditions, needed the same diagnostics and preventatives. In this case, should the state still provide all citizens with access to basic healthcare? Yes. So, the difference is not morally relevant.