Multiparty political systems are found in many countries that have parliamentary governments. Countries with multiple parties include Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, and Sri Lanka. Most multiparty countries have four or five major
parties and, in addition to these, there may be many minority partibs. In most cases, each of these political parties has
particular economic or social goals. Multiparty systems vary from country to country. Most multiparty systems consist of
a few left-wing parties, which hold liberal or radical views, some center parties, which have moderate views, and a few
right-wing parties, which support conservative views. In multiparty countries, one party seldom wins enough seats in the
legislature to form a majority. Therefore, two or more of the parties will join forces and form a coalition government to
direct the nation's affairs. Often the coalition parties fall to agree on policies and programs because of the differences in
their political bellefs; therefore, the government ultimately falls. In the United States, the system of government is
considered a two-party system, where the checks and balances of each party against each other is fairly even; the one
party will win some legislative galns, and then the other will. The multiparty system is not as simplified as that. The
multiparty system tends to produce a less stable government than does the two-party system.
Which sentence in the paragraph is the topic sentence?

A. Multiparty political systems are found in many countries

B. The multiparty system tends to produce a less stable government than does two-party system

C. Most multiparty systems consist of a few left-wing parties, which hold liberal or radical views, some center parties, which have moderate views, and a few right-wing parties, which support conservative views.

Which statement is the best summary of the theme in this passage? people almost always disappoint their family members. working hard and being honest leads to long-lasting rewards. showing strength in a crisis makes problems easier to overcome. unintentional betrayal can lead to severe consequences

Voluntourism: an opportunity too good to be true a speech to the student body of evergreen high [1] picture this: it's spring break, and you fly off to some country where there's lush rainforests and beautiful, blue coastlines to explore. there's also people in need, so you decide to blend your vacation with volunteering. volunteering as a tourist, or voluntourism, seems like a great way to explore new regions and people at the same time. however, this "volunteer plus travel" experience can actually harm local communities. while many teens might view traveling and volunteering abroad as a worthwhile adventure, there are more genuine and effective ways to make a difference. [2] most would agree that volunteering in general is a worthy use of time. however, what if you found out the children you are "" are actually being kept in poor conditions so voluntourists will spend money to come to the local area? dale rolfe, a supporter of ethical voluntourism, explains the shocking reality that "animal sanctuaries and orphanages are often manufactured for the voluntourist…encouraging a cycle of exploiting the very animals and children the volunteers are trying to ." [3] proponents of the "volunteer plus travel" experience also argue that traveling to new places builds character and is a valuable way to learn about different cultures. with voluntourism, however, participants often pursue experiences that are all about them. for example, they sign up to build a school for a gold star on their resume, but they have no real building skills and take jobs away from local construction workers (schulten). or, they arrive to teach english but instead take selfies with the locals. one world traveler and ethical voluntourist believes voluntourism "can perpetuate small minded views of the world by taking insulated, fake, and structured experiences and selling them as unabridged and eye opening" (carlos). the voluntour experience is a mirage. the voluntourist's eyes are not opened to real life at the destination, and lasting change is not achieved. [4] if you want a genuine experience where you can see a lasting impact, there are better options than voluntourism. you can volunteer in your local community. give an hour every week to your town's animal rescue. serve monthly dinners to the homeless. be a reliable, positive influence on a child who needs a mentor. studies show that volunteering and forming lasting relationships with those you has a positive impact on your physical and emotional health. in fact, blood pressure is reduced, memory is improved, and rates of depression are reduced (michaels). [5] there is another reason to look into alternatives to voluntourism. did you know the average "voluntour" travel package costs $3,400 (rolfe)? could that travel money be better spent? if the world's citizens are your passion, it could go to an international organization. if you care about education, your funds can be used to buy books for students in faraway lands. if you want villagers to have clean water, contribute funds to local efforts to dig wells. if you want to experience a different culture, travel to the country as a guest, and learn from the locals how you can best them after you've returned home. but do not voluntour. [6] in reality, there are better ways to make a difference. voluntourism might appear to be an adventure that blends travel and others, but it does little except provide a costly, superficial experience that might actually do more harm than good. so, volunteer where you are most needed-at home, where you can stay to see the job through and form genuine, lasting relationships. choose a beautiful coastline closer to home and send the travel money you saved to an international organization that will put it to good use. whatever you do, don't turn someone else's hardship into your vacation. which paragraphs address the counterclaim of the argument? paragraphs 1 and 6 paragraphs 2 and 3 paragraphs 3 and 4 paragraphs 4 and 5

What is wrong with they follow citation of a book with two authors