Aye, while I agree there are indeed many different ways to express the concept of [fundamental basis] being to [helpful abstraction] as [practical application is], the original analogy presented by Nikhil stands strong. In fact, the examples provided by the retort reinforce the idea showcased in Nikhil's essay.
The psychology which informs the study of law is not much different from that which underpins the study of finance and money. The same can be said for mathematics, engineering, and architecture. The same can also be said for the sciences, engineering, and technology as well. All of these can be thought of as a progression from a fundamental basis to a helpful abstraction to then a practical application.
In addition, Nikhil may not have been able to come up with any other examples but that doesn't mean there aren't any! After all, there must be many other similar relationships between these three components. And yet, Nikhil's premise and conclusion are both still valid; he simply acknowledged his lack of creativity in unable to come up with any other examples. Aye, it's hard to top an example so fittingly analogous yet so comically presented! UrRong; just because Nikhil couldn't come up with others doesn't mean his analogy is any less valid.