Men and woman may have different reproductive strategies but neither can be…

Concept — An analogical argument reasons from likeness. A judgement that is already accepted about one pair of things is carried across to a second pair, on the ground that both pairs stand in the same relation. Its skeleton is the four-term proportion "A is to B as C is to D", and its force comes from how relevant that shared relation is, not from any general law covering both pairs.

Application — The statement concludes that men and women having different reproductive strategies does not make either one inferior or superior. Its support arrives with the phrase "any more than", which introduces a second pair whose verdict the reader is expected to grant already: a bird’s wings and a fish’s fins are unlike each other, yet nobody ranks one above the other.

The two pairs are then placed in the same relation — a man’s reproductive strategy is to a woman’s as wings are to fins: within each pair the two members are different solutions shaped for different ways of living, so difference between them carries no ranking. Because the pairs match in that relation, the verdict granted for the second pair is transferred to the first. Carrying a verdict across a parallel pair on the strength of a likeness is exactly the analogical pattern, so the argument is analogical.

Cross-check — Test the label against the other candidates by value:

• "Biological" and "Physiological" name what the sentence is about — organisms, and the working of a living body — not how it argues. The question asks for the type of argument, which is fixed by the form of the inference; the identical wings-and-fins move could be made about tools, languages or musical instruments and the form would not change.

• "Hypothetical" would require the conclusion to rest on a supposition, an if-then whose antecedent is only assumed. Nothing here is supposed: both the claim about wings and fins and the claim about reproductive strategies are asserted outright.

• Delete the wings-and-fins clause and the conclusion loses its only support. That confirms the comparison is carrying the argument rather than decorating it, which is the mark of the analogical form.