If there was no conflict would there be a story to tell? What do you think?

See below!

Explanation:

This is just my opinion, but assuming that you need a paragraph or so, I wrote out a full answer for you :)

I think that without a conflict, there is no story to tell. I believe this because the reason a story is a story, is because there is a reason for it's telling. Whether it is for entertianment, enrichment, or learning opportunities, a story has to have some kind of meaning for itself, and, in my opinion, this meaning is played through the conflict.

The conflict doesn't always have to be dramatic, or even be present(it can be past, or future), but without conflict, there is no meat in a story.

Of course, I can write a story without conflict. I can write a story about anything, for that matter. However, the prompt is asking if there would be a story to tell without a conflict, and I think there wouldn't be.

Education and learning moments aside, a story without conflict won't entertaining either! Without a conflict, there will be no rising action, falling action, or conclusion, which leaves nothing to a story!

Everyone's interpretation of what a "conflict" is can be different, but, in my opinion, there is no story to tell without a conflict involved.

hey there,

your answer is a) today we hope for clear skies.

let's look at the word(s) progressive verb. progressive means its happening right now. it is not going to happen and it has not already happened. it is happening right now. the sentence "today we hope" in option a is an example of a progressing verb. they are hoping right now. options b, c and d are not progressing verbs. they contain the words have, roared and will be. those words tell us that it has either happened or will happen. a is your answer.

best of luck,

- i.a. -