If you are right, and money is "the only reason he had to help his relative," that would actually prove his experiment failed -- that for all his pluck, his sav

If you are right, and money is "the only reason he had to help his relative," that would actually prove his experiment failed -- that for all his pluck, his savings of $5,000 were not sufficient to help a sick relative. The fact that his relatives tend to be better off than those of the genuine poor would only reinforce this. As it happens, his experiment might not actually be a failure, because what you're saying seems dubious -- people help sick relatives for all kinds of reasons beyond possessing money. If he quit the experiment to contribute love or support, for example, that does not conclusively prove it wrong (although it does raise the issue that it would be much harder for a poor person to contribute such support to a sick relative -- time is not free and quitting a job has more dire consequences when you're poor).