The correlation between the drowning child and extreme poverty would seem accurate, but becomes unconvincing when he states that distance should not make a difference since it is more likely a person assists someone closer rather than further away. In favor of objections to Singer's argument, it is plausible to be obliged to assist only if you knew the cause and were assisted to the extent of a permanent solution to the situation, as you would in Singer's example if you saved the child from drowning. Reading Garritt Hardin's objection allowed me to understand more clearly the limitations of Singer's argument which lead me to remain unconvinced and with the same beliefs I previously held before this lesson. Therefore, I can conclude that Peter Singer's analogy is too narrow and I don't think we are obligated to attend to it, rather it is a moral question