"One conflict I've faced is the possibility of rejection, specifically in auditioning for my school's advanced choir. I was unwaveringly nervous of rejection because it would mean, in my eyes, that I wasn't a good enough singer. Eventually, I decided it was best to try and possibly succeed than to live life in torment of the "what ifs." Now, almost a year later, I sing louder than anyone in my section of Basses, all because I went for it. Had I been overwhelmed by my fear of rejection, I never would have met my new friends or fallen in love with the songs I now sing."
As for your own conflict, you can think of something most people don't really think about, like lying to protect someone's feelings or not agreeing with something your parents do and you not knowing what to do about it.
Gray billowing clouds, the howling wind and thunder in our ears, above our heads, we donned our ponchos, ready.
Hope this helps. Please do mark brainliest! (:
Answer:
A moral dilemma is shown here
Explanation:
Starting with the last word, <em>perfidy </em>is a deliberate breach of faith or trust; in the context of war - we can assume that this the case because of the word <em>peace</em><em> loving country</em> - perfidy can actually lead to warcrimes, like waving a white flag and then kill the enemy.
So the moral dilemma is that a country is very likely to be uncomfortable with a pact, the other side probably being a bit of a war loving country, but diplomatic relations deny the possibility of breaking the pact.
The part <em>not wishing to take the initiative of breaking the pact </em>is, if I´m not mistaken, a subordinate adjective clause that refers to the noun <em>country</em>.
So this country, not wishing etc., could not resort to perfidy either. Because that would be even worse, considering the fact that it is a peace loving country.
What actually is this? A book?
