Here is the table filled in with the possible biases and reasons for each source:
[tex]\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\text{Source} & \text{A Heritage Foundation study} & \text{AFSCME's annual newsletter} & \text{An article in the Journal of American History} \\
\text{} & \text{(conservative think tank)} & \text{(public sector union)} & \text{(scholarly journal)} \\
\hline
\text{Possible Bias} & \text{Against} & \text{For} & \text{None} \\
\hline
\text{Reason} & \begin{tabular}{l} The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that \\ typically advocates for limited government intervention \\ and a reduction in federal power. \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} AFSCME, as a public sector union, generally supports expanded \\ federal power since it can lead to more government jobs \\ and funding for public services. \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} The Journal of American History is a scholarly journal that \\ aims to provide well-researched, balanced perspectives \\ without a specific political agenda or bias. \end{tabular} \\
\hline
\end{array}
\][/tex]
This table outlines the possible biases each type of source might have when discussing the expansion of federal power in the 1930s, along with the reasoning behind each bias assessment.
