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: Only for first year, if u are doing indepth o-chem then this isnt it . Mcmurry is a colourful and over-generalized textbook that presents the most fundamental concepts of organic chemistry without fully elucidating on their logic. Mcmurry's style is to induce learning of 0-chem via memorizing of reaction mechanisms, and other trivial components.    The only reason you should buy this book (same reason I did) is if your o-chem course is based on this; that being, this is your prescribed text. It is far too difficult to study organic chemistry with another textbook. However this may not be the case for this edition of Mcmurry. Organic Chemistry by Wade has the same chapter format, covers essentially the same thing but treats  the fundamental principles with more depth; allowing the reader to appreciate the finer points of organic chemistry.    One thing that irritated me the most about this book was that there is no appendix for IR frequencies of major functional groups, and mass spectra is barely covered. It is at best just mentioned...nothing more. Wade treats the interpretation of spectral data with more clarity and depth...something which is essential in second year chemistry.    All in all this book doesnt even provide a good grounding in the basics. When it discuses KMnO4 oxidatation, that at least should be a review of redox.     The chapters on Substitution and elimination reactions as well as further chapters in aromatic chemistry are satisfactory, but it is the basics that are lacking. I would suggest for first time o-chem students to consult Wade and compare it to the writing style of Mcmurry. Albeit Mcmurry is very nice and colourful, you will regret its lack of depth and its over simplification of organic chemistry.    The book itself is supplemented with another spectroscopy book here in Australia, which suggests the severe lackings of this book. This has been inherent in it for the last three editions...Not too happy with it

Output: NEG


Input: Consider Input: For Advanced only . This book is attractively laid out and demonstrates (briefly) some techniques for people who have the knowledge to use them.  I don't have it unfortunately.  The authors say that knowing Photoshop would be "helpful"; I suspect it's required in order to do the digital printing described here.  They also recommend a more basic text on digital printing to understand this book, and that kind of knowledge also appears to be required.  That and a big printer!  If I were qualified to use the information, I would probably give it 4 or 5 stars.

Output: NEG


Input: Consider Input: Redundant and uninteresting . I obtained this book with the hope that it would build on the themes I encountered in another book I'm reading (Destructive Trends in Mental Health).  As a practicing experimental psychologist, I have observed first hand the strengths and weaknesses of the field of psychology.  Unfortunately, McIntyre failed to deliver.      First, the book is short on ideas and repeats them often.  Having biases is bad (he scapegoats religious and political ideologies).  Social scientists aren't brave enough (the author seems to idolize Galileo and Darwin).  Social scientists whine too much (about how *hard* their science is - my whining is in the next paragraph).  Social scientists need to look at the data instead of relying on armchair theorizing.  People don't really want to understand human behavior.  Yep, I think that's about it.  Now, repeat this in as many ways as possible and you can stretch it into a very short book.      The author turns a good word and thus the book is an easy read (thus the two stars).  As much as I might agree with some of his points, he overstates them (he caricatures social scientists as ignorant ideologues uninterested in data) and misses many important ones regarding the challenges of the field.  If I had as much control over humans as physicists and chemists have over their subject matter, things would be a lot easier.  So-called "hard" scientists don't have to ask the subjects of their inquiry if they want to participate in their experiments.  They also have much greater control of extraneous variables (Can I *please* be allowed to raise humans in the lab??? Can I *please* be allowed to run experiments on societies, governments, races, companies, ...  by changing their laws, rules, structures, income, etc. to my hearts content?).      The book would have been much less repetitious if he would have seriously considered the other challenges facing the social sciences instead of assuming that they're all easily surmountable.  Hint: Think weather prediction and you'll better understand the challenges of the social sciences.  The author needs to check his own biases at the door - it's obvious that he's a liberal atheist (as he was free to admit).      In sum - read the second paragraph of my review and you've gotten the gist of the author's message.  Skip the book.


Output: NEG