In this task, You are given an amazon food product review and its summary. Your task is to Generate "True" if given review and its summary match, otherwise generate "False".

Input: Consider Input: Instead of just being pork rinds, oil, salt and vinegar, they have lactose and maltodextrin on them, contributing to 2g of sugar per serving.  Many people (myself included) who buy this kind of snack who are on low carbohydrate diets; they will not be happy about the sugar.  The labeling on the package is very strange, and I am surprised it gets by the nice government men who worry about this sort of thing.  It says Total Carbohydrates are less then 1g, so they get to put zero grams.  Ok, fair enough, I have seen that before.  But then the label admits to 2 grams of sugar, which is a carbohydrate.  How they can get away with saying they have zero grams of carbs when there are 2 grams of sugar is beyond me.  I assume it is just that nobody has caught them yet.  Then there is protein.  The nutritional analysis says 8g of protein per serving.  Not bad for a snack food.  Right next to the 8g is says "Not a significant source of protein."  Huh...A slice of cheese is about 8 grams of protein, as is an ounce of meet.  I believe those are significant sources of protein.  I went to their website, to check out the nutritional facts.  I did notice they were high in sodium.  What I missed was that they claim the number of servings in a 1.75 oz package was three (3), so the sodium in a package is actually three times higher.  I doubt many people expect a 1.75 oz package to be three servings.  I just looked up Fritos Corn chips.  A 2 oz package is considered a single serving package, and the analysis on the back shows one serving.  So when Fritos tells you the sodium level, it is only 320 mg for the entire package.  For these pork rinds, the 1.75 oz package is 900 mg of sodium, about half of your daily requirement.  A little steep for a snack.  Although I went to their site to look at some nutritional info, they don't shows the label or the actual ingredients on their site or at Amazon.  If they had, I would not have purchased it.  They use partially hydrogenated oil, a kind of fat may be destructive to your health long term.  Since the government broke down and required that partially hydrogenated oil be listed on the label, a lot of the food industry has switched away from it, as people are correctly suspicious of it.  To add insult to injury, I was unhappy with the taste.  They have a chemical, nasty taste.  I suppose that is subjective, but a few bites left me a little queasy.  I feel bad having bought this, but perhaps my error will be of some use to others looking for a low carb snack.  Please pass this company's products by, and let's find someone else who can actually provide us the food we want and the information we need in a rational, ethical and legal way. 
 Summary: A poor choice

Output: True


Input: Consider Input: Supposed to be for cleaning their teeth - right...  well - that would assume they held up to some for of chewing...  our little Border TERRIER (not Collie) "eats" one of these in about 5 minutes...  too fast to be of any use to the teeth and almost too fast to cause concern in the digestive tract.  Bummer too because these are supposed to be great for pups teeth...  just an agressive chewer defeats Greenie...  that's all. 
 Summary: BEWARE

Output: False


Input: Consider Input: I recieved a Keurig K-Cup Brewer for Christmas with sample cups of coffee and tea but no cocoa so I tried this brand and I like them but I haven't tried other brands yet to compare with. I would buy these again until I find one I like better. 
 Summary: k-cups


Output: False