plz answer asap!

Prof. Rude bought a ticket to Mexico for $1,000. He is on his way to the airport to catch a flight for a vacation when he sees a child drowning in a lake. Fortunately, the lake is shallow so he can safely save the child. But he would have to miss his flight (the tickets are non-refundable and he has no money to buy a second ticket). He knows all of this. Not wanting to miss his flight, he chooses not the save the child. Prof. Sud is in the process of buying a ticket to Mexico for $1,000 when he receives an email from a malaria charity asking for a donation. The malaria charity is run by a corrupt wealthy bureaucrat that will pocket $100. Fortunately, the remaining $900 will save the life of a child in Uganda. Unfortunately, he only has money for the ticket or the donation. He knows all of this. He chooses not to donate, buying his ticket instead. Singer would argue that there is no morally relevant difference between Prof. Sud and Prof. Rude. Suppose someone responds to Singer by saying In Prof. Rude's case, his sacrifice of his vacation would only benefit the drowning child. But Prof. Sud's donation doesn't only benefit the child exposed to malaria - it would also benefit the corrupt wealthy bureaucrat. This is a morally relevant difference that makes Prof. Rude's action wrong and Prof. Sud's action not wrong. Respond on behalf of Singer by describing a modified version of Prof. Rude's case in which the posited difference is removed, but it's still obvious that Prof. Rude ought to save the child