In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer condemns the inactivity of affluent countries in aiding East Bengali refugees. Building on the discussion of famine relief, he moves to argue for his major contention, which is the altering of moral conceptual scheme so that affluent countries become morally obliged to assist needy regions, thereby eliminating inequality (Akintayo, 2013). This essay will first identify major arguments in support of the contention. It then applies the framework of critical thinking to evaluate each argument and culminate in reflecting on the previous analysis.

In the first place, four major arguments are synthesized and presented in standard forms. The first argument is:
Premise 1: Lack of food, shelter, and medical care leads to suffering and death of refugees.
Hidden Premise: Suffering and death of people are tragedy and undesirable, hence bad.
Argument 1(conclusion): Lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad (Singer, 1972).

The second argument is essentially upgraded from Argument 1. The author implicitly assumes it to help draw the overall contention. This essay spells it out as:
Premise 1: Conditions like food shortage and poor sanitation reflect income imbalance.
Hidden Premise: Income imbalance entails failure to eliminate marginal utility, which under the assumption of utilitarianism morality is bad.
Qualification: Robustness of the utilitarian view of morality.
Consolidated Argument 1b (conclusion): Conditions