PTE考生目前最大的问题之一就是PTE练习题的缺乏
This campaign season, there’s been plenty of name calling and lots of accusations. 美国总统大选正展开激烈争夺，而其中却充斥着诸多谩骂及指责。
David Clementson, a PhD candidate at The Ohio State University, has been keeping tabs. 美国俄亥俄州立大学的博士生大卫·克莱门森，一直在从事这方面的研究。
I mean there was one debate where Rubio and Cruz were just all over Trump, accusing him of dodging questions. “我指的是卢比奥和克鲁兹曾一度指责特朗普的逃避问题。”
But that doesn’t answer the question. “但那并不是回答问题。”
He didn’t answer… You have yet to answer a single serious question about any of this. “他没回应…”“你还没有回答这个非常严肃的问题”。
Clementson wanted to see if claims of question dodging actually held up, historically—not necessarily in the unique case of Trump. 克莱门森想要看看逃避问题的主张是否真的会变成对手发难的软肋，过往历史显示在特朗普的这种特例情况并不一定。
So Clementson analyzed the transcripts of 14 presidential debates, from 1996 to 2012. 因此，克莱门森分析了从1996年到2012年14位总统候选人之间的辩论记录。
Overall, he found 51 accusations of question dodging—26 by Dems, 25 by Republicans. 他发现，总体上共有51次回避问题受到指责—民主党26次，共和党25次。
A third of the time, the accused candidate did in fact go off-topic. 而三分之一的时间里，受指责一方的确偏离话题。
But in every single case, the accused candidate still mentioned the question topic. 但大多数时间内，被指责的候选人仍然在提及相关的问题。
Meaning that most of the time, he says, candidates are unfairly accused of question-dodging. 他表示，这表明大部分的时间里，候选人被指责回避问题是不公平的。
The results are in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 这项研究已在《语言和社会心理学》杂志上发表。
Clementson’s advice for the next debate? 而下一轮的辩论克莱门森有什么建议呢?
Just because a politician of your partisan affiliation or your party ID is telling you that the other guy can’t be believed, doesn’t necessarily mean that that politician is accurately detecting deception. 仅仅是因为你的党派关系中有一位政治家或你的政党身份告诉自己，不能信任对方，这并不一定意味着那位政治家就真的存在欺骗行为。
In other words, don’t trust’em. 换言之，不要轻信于人。
Because the politician doing the accusing may be the one telling lies. 因为这位指责于人的政治家也有可能在撒谎。
Lying Ted…he’s a liar. 说谎的泰德，他就是个骗子。
