The key claim in Singer’s argument is this: You are obligated to prevent something bad from happening if you can do so without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. In support of this claim, Singer observes that intuitively you should save a child from drowning, even if it will cost you an expensive pair of shoes. The best explanation of this is, Singer argues, his key claim. Thus, he maintains that our existing ethical beliefs commit us to this key claim. Timmerman argues, however, that the sacrifice required in Singer’s thought experiment is unlike the sacrifice demanded of those in affluent nations. A better analogy, Timmerman suggests, is pulling children out of ponds constantly, sacrificing anything in your life less important than the life of a child. In this revised thought experiment, common sense permits us, at least once, to take a break. Hence, Timmerman concludes, Singer cannot maintain that common sense sides with his key claim.