Advances in photocopying technology allow criminals with no printing expertise to counterfeit paper currency.
Conclusion (should = opinion)
The color-changing ink should be adopted, rather than microprinting.
Evidence
Even though the color-changing ink is more expensive, it would allow anyone to detect photocopied counterfeit currency easily.
Meanwhile, microprinting would be easily detected by experts but not by normal people (which is why counterfeits of microprinting often circulate widely before being detected, i.e. those counterfeit bills get used in a lots of different financial transactions before someone realizes the bill is a fake).
Evaluate
We're choosing between Option A (microprinting) and Option B (color-changing ink).
They each have a stated advantage and disadvantage.
Microprinting wins when it comes to being less costly, but loses when it comes to the fact that it's hard for non-experts to detect counterfeit bills when microprinting is the giveaway.
Color-changing ink loses when it comes to being more costly, but wins when it comes to the fact that it's easy for anyone (including non-experts) to detect a counterfeit bill.
Goal
Since we're Weighing Tradeoffs, we would want to strengthen by adding another positive to colored-ink, another negative to microprinting, or to hear that the positive about colored-ink outweighs the negative.