In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.

[EX Q]: This book ruined my golf game. . After reading this book, I caught a duck to use on the links. Despite naming it Ping, my distance and putting went down the toilet. I would not suggest using Ping for your average hacker
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: GREAT overview-awful editing &amp; proofreading . As previous reviewers have commented, this is a very good overview of the CMMI. The authors work in the industry, and have done an admirable job presenting the nuts-and-bolts of this enormous topic in a straightforward fashion. But if you intend to use it as a tool, like you would Paulk's book on the SW-CMM (SM), DON'T BUY IT YET. The editing in Appendix B renders this book useless to me (I need it as a tool). When I compare the constituents of the Process Areas in Appendix B to the CMMI (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-018), there is erroneous duplication. E.g., &quot;Commitment&quot; in PMC reads exactly like &quot;Commitment&quot; in Requirements Management PA (it shouldn't !). Ditto for Co in SAM, Co in MA, and the subsequent Maturity Level 2 Process Area commitments. The same erroneous cut-and-paste was made for the Abilities, DI, etc. The Level 3 PAs have the similar problem, erroneous cut-and-pastes from the RD template. I cannot use this book as I'd intended because of these errors, so I have to lug around the large heavy SEI tech reports instead
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: Awful . I asked a friend for recommendations for a mindless beach read, and she suggested this series.  I've suddenly lost a lot of respect for her.  It goes beyond being a bad book, into downright offesive.  What woman behaves this way?  It seems assembled from off the shelf parts, by men sitting around a conference table, asking each other what women want.
[EX A]:
NEG