The Haitian Revolution has been a complete disaster. All of my friends are poorer now than when the revolution
started. We were the most productive, hardest working
people on the island, but now our fortunes have been
seized by corrupt politicians. Even the slaves who worked
on my plantation were much happier before the revolution;
I'm positive they'd like things to go back to the way they
were
Why would historians most likely question this source's credibility?
O A. It is highly personal and makes assumptions about other people's
feelings.
OB. It focuses on Haiti and ignores how the revolution affected other
countries
O C. It deals with distressing issues such as social hierarchies,
corruption, and slavery.
O D. It is critical of the Haitian Revolution, which freed all of the slaves
in Haiti

O A. It is highly personal and makes assumptions about other people's  feelings.

Explanation:

The credibility of any historical source depends on the nature of the source. If it is an unbiased and have a valid proof of the claim/ argument made, then we can say that the source is credible.

On reading the given passage, we can safely assume that it is not a credible source. One, because it contains a highly personal opinion of the Haitian Revolution. And two, it makes assumptions about the feelings of others, especially the slaves "who worked on [his/her] plantation". The speaker felt that the slaves in his plantation "were much happier before the plantation [.. and would] like things to go back to the way they were". This personal and assumptive opinion makes it easy for historians to question the source's credibility.

Thus, the correct answer is option A.

answer; philip morin freneau