P1:  In 1940, when France needed aid from Quebec, Quebec didn't think ties of blood and race were good enough reasons to provide that aid.
P2:  Quebec thinks that ties of blood and race would be good enough reasons for France to support a declaration of independence by Quebec.
MP3:  It is hypocritical to expect others to help you when you wouldn't help them for the same reason.
C:  It is hypocritical for Quebec to expect France's support if Quebec declares independence.

How might we analyze Singer's argument in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty"?

Here are what seem like the key lines in the article:

Premises:  "Bob's conduct ... was gravely wrong." (62)

"If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and saved the child's life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the [charitable] organizations listed above." (62)

Conclusion:  "I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening." (63)

P1:  In the Bugatti case, Bob is morally obliged to sacrifice a great deal in order to save someone's life.
MP2:  The Consistency Principle:  if a person is morally obliged to act a certain way in some particular situation and yet would not be obliged to act that way in another situation, there must be some morally significant difference between the two cases.
P3:  There is no morally significant difference between Bob's situation with regard to saving the child's life and our present situation with regard to others whose lives we could save.
C:  You are morally obliged to sacrifice a great deal in order "to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life threatening." (63)