I think that a source of disagreement in the article might come from Rogers' approach, in general. The article is very solid in terms of its reasoning and analysis. It does not seem like there are logical fallacies in Goldfried's article. The source of disagreement might have to exist in Rogers' approach, in general. There are those who advocate that theoretical approaches should be the paradigm into which the patient should be viewed. This should be the prism through which the practitioner views their craft.
In being able to disagree with the subject- centered paradigm that Rogers offers, one can find that there is one source of disagreement that is in the article. Being able to question Rogers' approach might be where one could find a source of disagreement. The premise of the article is that what Rogers offers has had a transformative impact on psychotherapy. Being able to question this with an alternative approach and another way to view what constitutes as successful psychotherapy is where a potential area for disagreement could be seen.