Model answers

1. I cook at home about four times a week, usually simple dinners like stir-fried vegetables with rice. On weekends I eat out with friends, so I rarely cook then.

2. There is a night market near the river where people love to eat. It opens after six o’clock, and you can find dozens of small stalls selling noodles, grilled fish and fresh fruit juice. It is noisy and crowded, but the atmosphere is friendly and the food is cheap.

3. I clearly remember the dinner my grandmother cooked when I passed my university entrance exam. She spent the whole afternoon making dumplings by hand, and my cousins came to celebrate with us. The food was delicious, but what I remember most is how proud she looked when she put the plate in front of me.

In my opinion schools should ban phones in class. There are many reasons.

First, phones make students distracted. When I was in high school many students play games or chat with friends in the lesson and they dont listen the teacher. This is very bad for their study.

Second, some students do not have a good phone, so it is not fair. The teacher cannot use phone for all students.

Some people think phones are useful because students can search information. This is true but students can use computer in library after class.

In conclusion, I think phones should be banned in class because they make students distracted and it is not fair.

Few objects divide teachers and parents as sharply as the mobile phone. While some schools now treat phones as a learning tool, others remove them at the classroom door. In my view, a complete ban is the wiser policy, mainly because it protects students’ attention and ensures that every learner is treated equally.

The strongest argument for a ban is concentration. A phone is not simply a device for looking things up; it is a constant source of messages, games and notifications that are designed to capture attention. When I was at secondary school, our teacher allowed phones for a vocabulary app, yet within minutes several classmates had drifted into social media. The activity that was meant to take ten minutes took twenty, and the teacher spent most of it checking screens rather than teaching.

Fairness is a second concern. Not every family can afford a modern smartphone, and students with older models or limited data can be left behind or, worse, embarrassed in front of their peers. If a school genuinely wants to use technology, it can provide tablets that are the same for everyone and can be controlled by the teacher.

Supporters of phones in class argue that young people must learn to use technology responsibly, and that searching for information is a valuable skill. I agree that digital skills matter, but they can be taught in dedicated lessons with school equipment, where the purpose is clear and distractions are limited.

In conclusion, although phones offer some educational benefits, their power to distract and the inequality they create outweigh these advantages. Keeping them out of lessons gives students the best chance to focus on learning.

In many cities, road space has become one of the most valuable resources. Giving part of it to cyclists is controversial, especially for drivers who already face heavy traffic. However, I believe building bike lanes is a good idea because it improves public health, reduces congestion over time and makes cities more pleasant to live in.

First, safe bike lanes encourage people to exercise as part of their daily routine. Many adults say they have no time for sport, but a twenty-minute ride to work solves that problem without any extra effort. My colleague started cycling to the office after a protected lane opened on his route, and within a few months he had lost weight and felt much less stressed.

Second, although it seems surprising, bike lanes can reduce traffic jams. Every person who cycles is one less car on the road. Cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam show that when cycling is safe and convenient, a large share of short trips move away from cars, which leaves the roads clearer for buses, deliveries and those who really need to drive.

Of course, the change is difficult at first. Drivers may lose parking spaces, and local shops sometimes worry about fewer customers. These concerns are real, so cities should build lanes gradually and listen to local businesses. Yet studies in several cities have found that cyclists visit local shops more often, even if they spend a little less each time.

Overall, bike lanes are an investment in a healthier and less crowded city. The short-term inconvenience for drivers is worth the long-term benefits for everyone.

This picture shows a busy train station platform in the morning. The clock says it’s nearly a quarter to eleven, and the board shows a train to the city centre at 10:45, so the train on the right is probably about to leave. On the left, a woman is buying a coffee at a small kiosk. Next to her, a man is reading a newspaper on a bench beside an older woman. In the middle, a tourist is studying a map — he looks a bit lost. Behind him, a woman is running for the train with her suitcase, and her papers are flying everywhere, so I think she’s late. On the right, a father is walking with his young child, who is holding a balloon, and a small dog is running around their feet. Finally, a guard next to the train is blowing his whistle, so the doors will close any second.

Last year I took an overnight train from my hometown to the capital to visit my sister. I booked a bed in a sleeper carriage because the ticket was much cheaper than flying. At first I was a bit nervous, because I had never slept on a train before and I was sharing the compartment with three strangers. But one of them was a retired teacher who told me funny stories about his students, and we ended up talking until almost midnight. When I woke up the next morning, the train was passing through green hills covered in mist, which was really beautiful. The journey took fourteen hours, but it didn’t feel long at all. Since then I’ve preferred trains for long trips, because you actually see the country and sometimes meet interesting people.

I definitely prefer public transport. The main reason is that it is less stressful. When I take the train to work, I can read, listen to podcasts or just relax, while drivers have to concentrate on the traffic the whole time. Another reason is cost: petrol and parking in the city centre are very expensive, but a monthly travel pass costs much less. I know a car is more convenient for families with small children or for people who live far from a station, and I would probably drive in that situation. But for most daily trips in a city, public transport is cheaper, calmer and better for the environment, so that is my choice.

Well, there are clear benefits to this plan. The biggest one is money: if the rent is much lower, your friend could save a lot every month, maybe enough to buy a car or even start saving for a house. A small town is also usually quieter and safer, with more green space, so their quality of life outside work could improve. They might even get a bigger apartment for the same price, which is important if they work from home sometimes.

On the other hand, the commute is a serious disadvantage. An hour each way means two hours a day, or about ten hours a week, spent travelling. That time and the cost of tickets or petrol could cancel out part of the savings. It could also be harder to see friends in the city after work, and if the trains are delayed or stop running late at night, your friend could feel quite isolated.

So overall, I think it is a good idea only if the transport connection is reliable and your friend doesn’t mind using the travel time to read or relax.

Thank you for listening to me. I understand that a new fee might seem unpopular, but I strongly believe the council should introduce it.

First of all, the city centre has a traffic problem that is getting worse every year. Buses are stuck in the same jams as cars, so they are slow and people stop using them. A fee would reduce the number of cars, which means buses could run faster and more reliably straight away.

Secondly, the money goes directly into better buses, so drivers can see what they are paying for. More frequent services and new routes to the suburbs would give people a real alternative to driving. I know several neighbours who would happily leave their cars at home if the bus came every ten minutes.

Finally, think about the city’s image and health. Cleaner air and quieter streets make the centre more attractive for shoppers and tourists, which is good for local businesses in the long term.

Of course, the council should protect people who have no choice, for example by offering discounts for disabled drivers and delivery vans. But with those exceptions, I really believe this fee would benefit everyone, and I hope you will vote for it.