In the essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, by Peter Singer, the author discusses the importance of donating to charity. Singer’s opinion is that the West should help more poor people overseas. In the west, people consume more than they need while at the same time, children in poor countries die every day. In order to convince the reader to donate money to charity, Singer uses emotional appeals in his essay to convince the reader that his point of view is the right one. Singer accuses people who do not donate money to charity as “morally wrong” and he encouraged the reader to donate money to charity. In this essay Singer refers to the work of Peter Unger to illustrate a situation that makes the reader feel obligated to give charity.  When I was reading the example of Bob and the little kid killed by the train, I felt like trapped. I thought that bob was wrong and should've saved the kid, then I realized that I was wrong too not helping poor children. This argument that Singer uses is very logical, but I don’t think it is a strong one. The way in which Singer set his argument is very smart because every person will judge Bob as a bad person for choosing to save his expensive car instead of the life of a kid, but then the reader will realize that himself don’t do nothing to save other kids who dies everyday out of hunger.  Although he makes a strong emotional appeal, that is where his logic stops. Finally I cannot imagine America, being the economic giant that it is, donating as much money as Singer states in his essay. America’s economy is based on the culture of consumerism, and if Americans stop their habit of getting brand new stuff that they don’t need to save money so that they can help poor countries, well by then I think that Americans will be poor and will need help.