NYT article “Getting Rid of Big Currency Notes”

Author

Tutor

Course

University

Date

The difference in writings determines whether an article if factual or opinionated. Regardless of which direction an article takes in some case, even factual articles contain fallacies. It is natural to argue based on personal or group interests. Taking a look at the article by AARON KLEIN titled “Getting Rid of Big Currency Notes”, the article contains some fallacies. This article explains how the introduction of $1 would help in cutting budget and thus reducing budget bills.

The type of fallacy presented in this article is syllogism fallacy. This fallacy is normally used to arrive at conclusion that are unusual. Syllogism fallacy is a false argument as it implies an incorrect conclusion. Though the author is an insider and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury between the years 2009 and 2013, the reduction in spending $13 billion is not factual and realizable. The author states “conservative estimate of the Government Accountability Office, and more than $13 billion in my estimation”. These are estimates and not based on actual data. The author does not detail the costs of production of coins in comparison to the currency notes.

In conclusion, the figures presented in this article cannot be verified neither are they based on any document. The $13 billion reduction by the introduction of $1 is the author’s own estimate. Additionally, the years for which the author worked as deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury was long enough to make things change. The cost of production by then was less than the current year.

References.

KLEIN, A., (2016). Getting Rid of Big Currency Notes. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/switch-to-a-1-coin.html?ref=opinion&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article on 2th, March, 2016.