“At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the affluent nations of the world, people who would have been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy go home to places far more comfortable than her apartment.” 

Singer juxtaposes the viewers’ wealth with Dora’s modest means. This contrast reveals ignorance among those who judge Dora by a certain standard but fail to meet that standard themselves. That ignorance can even turn to hypocrisy when those same individuals become aware of their moral obligations (by reading Singer’s article) but fail to act accordingly.

“In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one—knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?” 

Though Singer is fully committed to his position, he initially presents it tentatively and indirectly, including through questions like this one. By so doing, he invites readers to consider the moral implication, establishing a sense of dialogue between text and reader. This question also reveals Singer’s razor-sharp focus on ethics, independent of superficial or pragmatic concerns.

“(I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues).” 

Singer’s brief aside, midway through the article, indicates why he focuses on saving children instead of people generally. This is just one of several ways that Singer tries to close every loophole that might give his readers a way to excuse themselves from donating. His belief that adults are just as worth saving as children stems from his utilitarian thinking in which everyone’s wellbeing is weighed equally.