I'm going to advertise my hometown as a tourist destination. Please help me with this video script. It's very important. I don't want to make any mistake. Please correct the grammatical error. It'd be better if you could help refine it, make it sound natural and native. Many thanks! _________________________________________________________ Hi, there! Welcome to YICHUN I’m your tour guide today! I was born and raised here. So in this video, I’ll show you the top 10 things to do in YICHUN. Yichun City ( Heilongjiang province) China, is known nationally as China’s largest forest capital. Located in the northeast of China, about 2 hours from Harbin by bullet train, it is a fascinating city to add to your China itinerary. No.1 As night falls on the snow village, the village is totally covered in snow and fairytale-like scenery awaits. Lanterns with Chinese characteristics give off warm light, kids dance their fireworks, and brilliant fireworks explode into the sky. No. 2 As a gourmet, I’m pretty sure chicken stewed mushrooms will satisfy your taste. It is the most representative Northeastern Cuisine. All the ingredients come from nature. You will be warmly welcomed by the simple local farmers. No.3 Yu hot springs is a relaxing getaway, where you can soak in a continuous flow of World Famous Natural Hot Mineral Water. No. 4 There are loads of ways to play with snow, building a snowman, sliding down a snowy slope, throwing hot water in air it will turn into ice crystals…. The ice and snow park is full of screams and laughter. No. 5 Breathe the fresh air, take some exercise, and get a good sweat on. Cycling, skating, hiking through the winter forests and skiing are really chilly experience. No. 6 Oh, yes. Don’t forget to buy some sophisticated local artefacts as gifts for your family and friends.

It is true that supermarkets have increasingly attracted the majority of consumers than local shops. As a result, these shops are being negatively affected and this trend can be seen as a double sword overall. Local shops are being wiped out as they are becoming much less competitive compared to supermarkets. Any rational individual will buy most of his or her food and household goods from a big store because prices are lower, choice greater, quality more consistent. To retain old customers, local retailers have to cut their prices to compete with big chains. However, with the rising fixed costs, including wages, rents and other bills, their profit margins are sharply squeezed. Some of them have gone bust, shut up shops and therefore totally driven out by supermarkets. Perhaps customers are the only ones who are happy with the arrival of supermarkets. Apart from the lower prices discussed above, big stores also tend to provide standardised service, for example, they most recently introduce self-service lanes for payment. This is a blessed relief to generations who recall the surly greengrocer or butcher with poor service attitude. Despite the benefits for customers, environment and community cohesion suffer a lot because of the popularity of supermarkets. Shopping at supermarkets means that a decent percentage of the produce has had a longer field-to-fork journey and more packaging would be involved in comparison with shopping at local independent retailers, which could take a greater toll on the environment. Also, money spent in local shops tends to stay in the community while after the arrival of a big supermarket, participation in local charities, churches, campaign groups and even voting declines sharply. In conclusion, local businesses are being threatened by supermarkets and people with different perspectives have split feelings about this trend.

Do I deserve a English & Chinese language partner? My IELTS is 6.5 in speaking. I can help with your Chinese, I speak standard Mandarin with northern accent. I prefer zoom and wechat.

What does Freudian courtroom mean? Youngsters are increasingly excused from obeying their elders, whereas parents are blamed for anything that goes wrong in the life of their child. Mum and Dad are about as likely to get off in the Freudian courtroom as were defendants in a Stalinist show trial.” Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind Yuval Noah Harari

Please help check if there is any unnatural expression Q: Lectures used to be a way to teach large numbers of students, but with technology available for education, there is no justification for lectures. To what extent you agree or disagree? Some people argue that lectures are no longer necessary with the availability of technology for educational purposes. While I agree that technological developments are of great value in teaching, I also agree that there are grounds for delivering lectures to a large group of students. On the one hand, technology certainly plays an essential role in teaching because it can be used as a supplement to traditional lectures. Teachers today are adept at using the internet where they can collect a wide range of cases and vivid images. After the class, teachers often give and receive homework through the internet, including email, social media platforms etc. For example, in China, teachers of primary school typically assign homework via WeChat group, which allows students to hand in their assignments online and to receive feedback from their teachers immediately. However, I disagree with the idea that lectures have no place in educating a large number of students for the importance of face-to-face interaction. If lecturers have a good speech skill, a large group of students are likely to be affected by the atmosphere on site and inspired by the engaging contents that they deliver. Hopefully, students’ interests in learning might be also ignited, which can be beneficial for them in the long term. All of which could result in a better teaching effect in comparison with virtual interaction. In conclusion, although technology has an important role to play in education, I believe that traditional lectures should continue to be a teaching method when it comes to teaching large quantities of students.

Please help check if there is any unnatural expression Some people think that people should be given right use of fresh water as they like. Others believe governments should control toughly over the use of fresh water. Discuss both view and give your own opinion. ---- While many believe that governments have the authority of toughly controlling their citizens’ water usage, I personally prefer the view that consumers should be left to their own devices on their fresh water consumption. On the one hand, it is argued that people’s fresh water usage should be strictly limited to an amount by the government because fresh water is a finite resource. To illustrate, unlike seawater, fresh water from water bodies such as lakes and rivers is mostly produced from participation, the amount of which is often determined by weather and climate conditions. In other words, there is no limitless fresh water for people to squander on the planet. Further concern is that seawater desalination which involves removing salt from seawater can be expensive. The price of water in most countries cannot cover the cost of this pricey process. Therefore, governments should impose a limitation on people’s use of fresh water. On the other hand, however, I insist on the point of view that people should be granted the right to decide how much fresh water they want to use. Firstly, people are consumers who pay for the fresh water they use, which means that they would not waste their money on purpose. Secondly, it goes against the values of a free society if people could not make their own choice in terms of fresh water. A final point worth mentioning is that household water usage is far less than industrial and agricultural water usage. Governments need to pay more attention to those sectors rather than individual consumption. In conclusion, I believe that government should not control people’s water consuming behaviour, and people should be given the right to determine on their own water usage.

Please help check if there is any unnatural expressions Interviews form the basic selecting procedure for largest companies. However, some people believe interview is not a reliable mean of choosing who to employ and there are some other better methods of selection. Do you agree or disagree? __________ Undoubtedly, interviewing has been the most common method of screening talents for ages. Even though some people argued that it may not be trustworthy, I personally totally disagree with this statement. The drawbacks of interviews are pointed out by some HRs or employers who complain that new employees’ abilities sometimes are not matched with their exaggerated or even fake CVs. This concern can be justified as employers have no idea about the new comers who are total strangers to them, therefore, they might make the wrong decision. Consequently, they might turn to their own social circles in order to hunt for the right person, who they believe is much more reliable. However, I hold the view that the largest companies should still stick to this conventional way of employment. Firstly, big companies usually have numerous positions to fill, which means that the number of applicants recommended by their acquaintances might not satisfy their demands. Secondly, some talents may be omitted because of their lack of social skills. Programmers are a good example of this. They are often described as nerdy and introverted, as a result, they tend not to appear in any social circle. If employers took the approach of meeting them through acquaintances, these talents might be ignored, which could be a huge loss. To solve the problem of choosing the wrong person, I would suggest that employers take more caution in terms of background investigation for potential employees. Further solutions include assigning more qualified professionals to interview applicants. In conclusion, although there are certain downsides to interviews, I think that with a more scientific approach, this traditional way of employment can be useful for the largest companies to hire the most suitable person.

Please help check if there is any unnatural expression Recently, the people in many countries can live and work anywhere they choose with improved communication technology and transport. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Thanks to the advancements in communication technology and transport, people nowadays are able to live and work in any place that they like. Although there are some downsides behind this trend, I personally believe that it has a positive influence overall. On the one hand, it is undeniable that the freedom to choose a place to live and work brings some drawbacks. Firstly, due to technological improvements in aircraft, most airline companies have dramatically cut their prices of flight tickets, enabling people to fly to far-flung destinations to settle down. These long-haul trips mean a huge cost to environment because of the fossil fuels burning for planes. Secondly, living and working remotely usually leads to a lack of a sense of community, homesickness or even cultural shock, which may impose a negative impact on people’s mental state. On the other hand, however, the disadvantages mentioned above can be offset to some extent. Some of the airline companies are beginning to use biofuel to power their aircrafts; people living far away from their hometown can use numerous apps, such as WhatsApp, WeChat and Skype, to keep in touch with their families. In my opinion, the biggest benefit involved is that people living in different places are able to enjoy a colourful life, enriching their life experience. Freelance language tutors are a good example of this. A large number of tutors on a famous English learning website teach online while living in foreign countries, including Thailand, China and Japan. They can not only earn a decent salary but also enjoy exotic scenery and a different lifestyle. In conclusion, although there are some disadvantages to living and working in other places, I think we should embrace this trend for its advantages.

Any unnatural expression? In my opinion the most needed change that should take place in my local area is to build high-speed rail networks. In the past, about 20 years ago, my hometown contributed greatly to the country by providing timber resources for free. As a result, a large number of trees were logged down, and shipped to other parts of the country. Nowadays, however, because it is located remotely, in the far-flung corners of the nation, it's kind of forgotten by the central government. We still use slow and outdated trains in our province. If the high-speed rail networks penetrate into my hometown, that will definitely boost the economic development of this area. Firstly, rural dwellers will have access to major cities to do business such as sell their produce. Secondly, it will attract more talented young people to settle down and these elites will bring wealth and prosperity. As for the problem that would probably accompany high-speed rail networks I think is that the cost of living, including housing prices, will increase significantly. But personally I believe if this place grows wealthier, the rising cost will be offset by the rising income to some extent. I'm looking forward to seeing the government allocate funds to build high-speed rail networks in this region.