The task you have to undertake in this paper is to i) provide the objection in the form of argument (you already have it above) and ii) explain Singer's responses to the objection (locate two premises Singer attacks and explain how he attacks them). Lastly, iii) show your opinion about Singer's responses. If you agree to Singer's responses, reinforce them by providing more grounds to accept them. If you disagree, provide your objections to them. You have 4 options.
1) You can agree to both Singer's response to P2 and his response to P3.
2) You can agree to Singer's response to P2 while you disagree to Singer's response to P3. 3) You can agree to Singer's response to P3 while you disagree to Singer's response to P2. 4) You can disagree to both Singer's response to P2 and his response to P3.

P1. If we earn our money under fair conditions, we have a right to spend the money in the way we want.
P2. We earn our money under fair conditions.
Intermediate Conclusion. We have a right to spend the money in the way we want.
P3. If we have a right to spend the money in the way we want, it is always morally right to spend the money in the way we want.
Final Conclusion: It is always morally right to spend the money in the way we want.

Singer claims that it is obligatory to donate our money above our basic need line. In the excerpt, Singer addresses an objection to this. In this paper, I will claim that Singer's responses to this objection are not fully satisfactory (If you agree to Singer, I will reinforce Singer's responses by providing more support.). The paper will be organized as follows. First, I explain the objection addressed by Singer. Secondly, I explain Singer's responses to the objection. Lastly, I present my argument that his responses are not satisfactory.

The style: Times new roman, 12pt, double-spaced
3. Length: up to 3 pages.