The Child in the Pond
Written by Studio AM.
Your result
- Words per minute
- Score
- Pace
Words per minute mean something only with the score beside them. They describe this passage on this read. With fewer than 3 right, try the next slower pace.
Choose a pace and select Start. The passage is paced and timed, then the questions check what you understood. How pace mode works
Reading time 0:00
Suppose you pass a shallow pond and see a small child drowning. You could wade in and pull the child out at no risk to yourself, though your shoes would be ruined and you would be late for work. Many people judge that stopping is a duty rather than an optional favor.
The philosopher Peter Singer uses this kind of judgment to support a broader argument. If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, he argues, we ought to do so. A child dying of a preventable disease on another continent is very bad. Some of the money we spend on things we barely notice could prevent it. Distance, on this view, carries no moral weight: the seriousness of suffering does not depend on how close we are to it.
One objection is that the argument proves too much. It does not stop at one donation; it keeps demanding until giving more would cost something of comparable moral importance, a standard that could require major changes to a comfortable life. Singer's response accepts the demanding implication: if the argument is sound, familiar spending habits may need revision. Critics question whether morality can require so much sacrifice. The dispute is not about whether the nearby child matters, but how far the principle behind that judgment should extend.
The passage is hidden while you answer. It comes back with your result.
Questions
Choose an answer. The explanation appears after you answer.
-
Question 1 of 4
Which statement best captures the passage's structure and claim?
The answer is B: Singer extends a rescue judgment to distant need, and critics object to how demanding the principle becomes.
The passage presents the rescue judgment, Singer's broader principle, and a demandingness objection.
-
Question 2 of 4
What does the objection that the argument 'proves too much' mean here?
The answer is A: If accepted, the argument demands far more than most people believe morality can require.
The objection challenges how much the principle requires, not the number of examples used.
-
Question 3 of 4
What does “comparable” mean in this passage?
The answer is C: of similar size or weight
The demand stops only where the giver's loss would be as morally serious as the harm prevented. 'Comparable' marks that balance of similar weights.
-
Question 4 of 4
In the pond story, what would rescuing the child cost you?
The answer is D: Ruined shoes and a late arrival
The story fixes the cost precisely: 'your shoes would be ruined and you would be late for work', and 'no risk to yourself'. The smallness of that cost is what powers the argument.
Score: none answered yet.