Source 1: sworn testimony by american sergeant in congressional hearings
in 1969.
source 2: speech by american general touring the united states in 1969.
which do you trust more? why?

I trust “Source 1”

Explanation:  

I would trust the Source 1 i.e., the “Sworn testimony by American Sergeant in Congressional hearings in 1969” more because a sworn testimony is a gold evidence for the Congressional hearings. It won’t affect a person i.e., the Sergeant in any way. Maybe the testimony can get corrupted by lying, forcing and constraining, and the shaking the human memory. But in a speech by the General can affect his reputation as he can hid the truth and lie in his speech. So, the sworn testimony is more reliable than the speech.

answer; ///i do believe that the correct answer is (d); ///athens had a small population;

britain's king george iii, however, refused to receive the petition, which, written we consider whom we must oppose in this contest, and if it continues, what may the fundamental grounds upon which americans were taking up arms had shifted. that king george refused to so much as receive the