Typology of mistakes in consecutive interpretations and the way to overcome and eliminating them

Outcomes on Chapter II
Mistakes in consecutive interpretation have always worried translators, educators and scientific researchers. Sometimes a lot depends on the result of the translator's work, such as the fate of a deal, a company or an entire country. There are a huge number of examples when some stupid mistake cost the reputation of huge companies or jeopardized the prestige of the state. Therefore, the translator must be extremely careful while translating, while companies, in turn, need to approach the choice of a translator with all responsibility. Nevertheless, no one is immune from mistakes, in This paragraph we will consider the main causes of translation mistakes in interpreting and the main strategies and tactics for correcting them.
Consecutive interpreting is a type of interpreting in which the interpreter starts interpreting after the speaker has stopped speaking, having finished the whole speech or some part of it. The speaker from time to time makes pauses in the speech, necessary for the translator to translate what was said. These pauses, as a rule, are short, since a professional translator usually formulates the translation already during the sound of the speech and pronounces it during the pause. Consecutive interpreting requires the translator to keep significant segments of the original content in mind for a long time before the start of the translation.
A mistake is a wrong response towards a topic that the students have known about. When the student given a second chance, they have the potential to correct a mistake. Thus, when the students given a chance to remember and to watch their interpretation product they know what is wrong and they can correct it and give the right answer. While error is a wrong response made by students because they have no knowledge about what is the right answer.
If, as I have tried to show, interference is at least as close as can be to a universal in translation and is still generally perceived as an error, especially in non-canonical technical and scientific texts, which are generally not thought to convey any sort of specific world view, either there must be some kind of rational, understandable range of motives for its use, or translators are simply incompetent. The latter seems a poor explanation: if this was so, publishers, proofreaders and editors would simply look for competent professionals and take care to avoid this behaviour because readers -especially technical readers at that - would complain about unreadable or unacceptable translations which hampered information flow. In my experience there are four main motives for interference in translation, which can be defined separately but tend to overlap in practice: the double tension intrinsically associated with translation, the creation and preservation of a specific terminology or jargon, the nonexistence of a given term or structure in TL, and the prestige of the source culture. All of these are present in all kinds of translation, but the last three are especially visible in scientific and technical translation.