Your third sentence is almost correct, you're just missing an a:
Would Chinese people love tradition if China were not a communist country?
The above is the correct sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by "I changed three sentences"; only #3 above is close to correct when speaking of the people who currently live in China. If you are also trying to present a past or future conditional, you could use either of these sentences:
Would Chinese people have loved tradition if China had not been a communist country?
This only makes sense if you are speaking from a future point where China is no longer a communist country. For example, now that we live in a future where the US and UK are separate countries, we can present a past conditional like:
If King George hadn't raised taxes, would the Revolutionary War have started?
You can also present a future conditional, speculating on what would happen if China stops being a communist country in the future:
Would Chinese people still love tradition if China were no longer a communist country?
Note that the common factor in all these conditionals is that they use would.
Both uses of the past form are possible. Some grammarians speak of the past form as "remote", because it "removes" the verb to a distance which may be either temporal or social.
Hi, Maria, I'm calling because I wanted to take you out for dinner.
Here you use the past form to make want less demanding. The remoteness is social.
Sorry I couldn't track you down last night. I wanted to take you out to dinner.
Here the primary sense is clearly temporal remoteness. You could, however, work in a degree of social remoteness by also employing the progressive construction, which in this case would have no implication of imperfectivity - it would just be a further distancing device.
Sorry I couldn't track you down last night. I was wanting to take you out to dinner.
Note that this last construction could also be used in the first example:
Hi, Maria, I'm calling because I was wanting to take you out for dinner.
In this particular instance, however, the progressive construction would probably not be used because it clashes with the progressive calling in the main clause.
- Grammarians give this the Latin name horror aequi, "the
widespread (and presumably universal) tendency to avoid the use of
formally (near-)identical and (near-)adjacent grammatical elements or
structures" (Rohdenburg).
You'd be more likely to use it in a context without a prior progressive:
Are you by any chance free tonight? I was wanting to take you out for dinner.
To express the "see-what-you're-missing" sense in English you would employ a construction with a stronger sense of intention. The past would be necessary in this case, rather than optional, because you would be speaking of a prior intention which no longer holds:
I was going to take you out for dinner, but I've changed my mind.
Best Answer
I would split this question into two questions.
Most job descriptions either do not provide enough detail, or provide too much detail without prioritizing which details are most important. Thus, it is very difficult for someone reading a job description to know what the employer is "looking for exactly". I therefore left out the word "exactly".
This answer changes the questions in five ways:
All of these changes make the questions more formal.