字神帝國英語天地

今日主題：Red Birds Carry On Colorful Chemistry / 紅色誘惑

洪欣老師推薦：托福聽力最好的課外教材：60-Second Science
康康精選托福會考的主題，堅持每天精聽一定會進步的哦!!

建議方法：
1. 先聽兩三遍 (不看文稿)
2. 再一句一句聽寫 (每句都要聽寫數遍，直到寫出85%以上的字)
3. 最後check文稿，看哪聽不出來，單字沒背過，還是發音不熟。
4. 堅持天天聽，就能每天進步哦。

MP3音檔 (按右鍵可下載聽)：喜歡的同學，幫忙推或按讚哦~~
http://online1.tingclass.net/voaspe/2016/20160615sa_mind.mp3

只有音檔怎夠，聽不懂地方，不用怕，康康幫你準備好中英文稿了：

中英文稿：
Candidates Tend to Not Dodge Questions
逃避問題可不是我的style

This campaign season, there's been plenty of name calling and lots of accusations. David Clementson, a PhD candidate at The Ohio State University, has been keeping tabs. "I mean there was one debate where Rubio and Cruz were just all over Trump, accusing him of dodging questions."
競選季，關於很多名字的謾罵和指控持續不斷。David Clementson，是美國俄亥俄州立大學的博士生，一直在做相關的報到。“我指的是，盧比奧和克魯茲曾一度指責川普逃避問題。”

[DEBATE CLIP: Rubio: "But that doesn't answer the question." TRUMP: "He didn't answer…" // Rubio: "You have yet to answer a single serious question about any of this."]
[音頻片段：盧比奧：“但你並沒有回答問題。”川普：“他沒回答……”//盧比奧：“你還沒有回答一個非常嚴肅的問題”。

Clementson wanted to see if claims of question dodging actually held up, historically—not necessarily in the unique case of Trump. So Clementson analyzed the transcripts of 14 presidential debates, from 1996 to 2012. Overall, he found 51 accusations of question dodging—26 by Dems, 25 by Republicans.
Clementson想要看看逃避問題是否真的會成為攻擊點，從以往來看——針對於川普的獨特案例，並不是這樣。所以，Clementson分析了從 1996年到2012年14位總統候選人之間的辯論記錄。他發現，總體而言，個被迴避的受指責問題——民主黨佔26個，共和黨佔25個。

A third of the time, the accused candidate did in fact go off-topic. But in every single case, the accused candidate still mentioned the question topic. Meaning that most of the time, he says, candidates are unfairly accused of question-dodging . The results are in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
其中，在受到指責的時間裡，1/3之一的候選人的確跑題了。但是，多數時間，被指責的候選人仍然在提及相關的問題。這意味著，大部分的時間裡，候選人被指責迴避問題是不公平的。該研究結果已發表在《語言和社會心理學》雜誌上。

Clementson's advice for the next debate? "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." In other words , don't trust 'em. Because the politician doing the accusing may be the one telling lies.
對於下一輪的辯論，Clementon的建議是什麼呢?就是因為你的政黨關係中有一位政治家或者你的政黨身份告訴自己，不能夠信任對方，這並不一定意味著這位政治家就真的存在欺騙行為。換而言之，千萬不要相信別人說的。因為他們也有可能在撒謊。

["Lying Ted… he's a liar."]
說謊的Ted，他就是個騙子。