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.

Input: Consider Input: A beautiful book . This set of articles, originally written for magazines and catlalogues, is one of the most eloquent collections of mountain writing I've yet come upon. The book is divided up into chapters such as 'Climbing with Style', which features articles about "the whole art of natural protection" written at the the start of the clean climbing revolution, and 'Further Aborad' which includes the authors account of a climb on Ama Dablam.    One of the features I most enoyed about the book was the introductions to various historical figures such as Smoke Blanchard and Royal Robbins. And the memoir style accounts of what it was like for a small band of climbers to live in the mountains away from civilization getting their kicks out of the "simple joys" and living in bare subsistence, long before climbing turned into the popular sport which it might be called today.    Doug Robinson is well qualified to write what he does, and his style is nice and clear without being base. Most of it is written in an autobiographical style, dealing with developments on the climbing and skiing scene for wenty odd years. If you are partial to a bit of Dharma Bums then get this book. Also anyone interested in the history of the Sierra Nevada

Output: POS


Input: Consider Input: It crashes on lap 2 . I'm a fan of Janet Evanovich and her Stephanie Plum series, I think it's laugh out loud funny.  I didn't care for this story at all, it seemed sloppily constructed and I agree with other reviewers, lacked a story line or believable characters.  I left off a few chapters into it, there was no point in finishing.

Output: NEG


Input: Consider Input: Poisonous Misinformation . The most depressing thing about a book like this is not the outrageously inaccurate content, but, based on the high ratings and adulatory comments by other reviewers, that most people actually believe this drivel. How can we possibly form an effective energy policy when the citizenry are not only uninformed but ill-informed? The answer is that we cannot. I will not bother to go through a detailed criticism, not only because it would take an almost book length document to do it, but because, in the highly politicized atmosphere we live in, no one would believe it. Today, the "truth" depends much more on one's political views than on an objective evaluation of the evidence.


Output: NEG