Passage Summary: Counterfeiting is getting easier, and the current 'microprinting' defense only works if an expert looks at the bill. There's a more expensive ink that changes color in the light, which would let regular people spot fakes instantly. The author thinks we should spend the extra money on this ink.

Conclusion: The government should switch to using color-changing ink for currency instead of microprinting.

Reasoning: Unlike microprinting, which requires experts to identify fakes, color-changing ink allows the general public to easily spot counterfeits, preventing them from circulating.

Analysis: The argument concludes that the more expensive ink is the better choice because it's easier for the public to use. To strengthen this, we need to bolster the idea that public detection is more important than the cost or the expert detection of microprinting. Look for an answer that suggests most counterfeit bills are caught—or fail to be caught—by regular people in everyday transactions. If the primary way fakes enter the economy is through transactions where no expert is present, the author's recommendation becomes much more compelling.