In this article, readers might be tempted to smell opinion in my language choice after critically reading the article because the use of "I" in the article might be taken by readers as being a personal Opinion and not that of the author. The use of "should" in some of the sentences I have used in the article might be taken by some readers as a condition which must be fulfilled by any American in order to help the poor living in third world countries. For instance, my sentence, "Americans should lead dismal lives and work as slaves to support the breeding habits of people in third world countries, because it is morally right" might be taken by some readers as being biased because it has encompassed or generalized each and every American regardless of his or her financial capability.
The audiences reading the article will become surprised on how each and every American can be able to lead a dismal live and work as a slave in order to satisfy the needs of another person. This is due to the fact that not all people can be slaves because in common sense, where there is a slave, then there must be a master. This can therefore be seen as a biased statement because it has generalized all people regardless of one's social status and financial ability in the society. Readers might also view the statement as being biased because of labeling people in third world countries as having breeding habits. The fact that some people in third world countries are poor cannot be generally attributed to their breeding habits and as such, some readers might view such a statement as being biased and in bad light. It might been however been fair if, the sentence could have been altered and instead be rewritten as "Financial stable Americans who have extra coins to spend should support poor people from third world countries since it is a moral responsibility for them"
On the other hand, the statement, "that having less money for needless luxuries makes one's life "dismal" is an assumption because it has not been proved anywhere in the world that people who normally have little money to spend on needless luxuries normally lead dismal lives. As much as it might be true, it might not hold water on the other hand simply because as much as it might be possible for someone to lead a dismal life just because he or she has less money to spend on luxuries, it might also be possible for an individual to lead a dismal life even when having a lot of money to spend on needless luxuries. This statement may therefore be viewed as being the writer's assumption because it has no supporting evidence which can make any reader critical looking at the article to become fully convinced.
Some readers however, might agree to this claim because they know very well that majority of people normally lead dismal lives because of their inability to get money to spend on basic human needs like food, shelter and clothing, and as such, it is very difficult for such individuals to get an extra cash to spend on needless luxuries. My continued use of "I" in the article might make some readers to view this as my personal opinion rather than a general view. The use of first person in the article will therefore make the readers to view this as being a personal opinion and position on the Singer's article instead of having argued it out and said according to Singer. When analyzing an argument, it is always problematic to avoid the first person because in normal circumstances, on is required to give opinions concerning an article and as such, it might not be so easy to analyze any argument without starting like "I think", "I suggest", e.t.c.
Guilt is a byproduct of Singer's argument rather than his purpose because he does not base his arguments on both sides of the coin. He has only based his arguments on a general view and on personal perspective without critically thinking about how best poor people from third world nations can be helped by Americans without necessarily suggesting that Americans should become slaves in order to achieve such an objective. As human beings, we should always feel guilty when our actions and deeds make us to behave immorally and therefore Singer's moral argument are invalid because he has not put into consideration the problems encountered by other Americans, who despite leaving in a prosperous and great country like Kenya, they still lead miserable lives. Singer's specific moral argument is therefore false since not all Americans will feel guilty for being unable to help poor people in third world countries because some might even be poorer than the people who might be living in third world countries and therefore will also require help. Some of Singer's moral arguments are therefore inaccurate because they have no tangible evidence to prove the claims.