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.

[Q]: A philosopher's view of science . In this book Popper presents two contradictory theses: (a) science can be based on deductive logic only, and there is no need for induction; (b) science cannot have a logical basis.     Because deduction yields sure knowledge if it is based on sure knowledge and induction always produces only hypothetical knowledge, as Bertrand Russell clearly stated, Popper begins by trying to show that the use of deduction instead of induction can provide a solid logical basis for science. He talks about replacing "inductivism" by "deductivism." In reality, he explains the use of deduction in the testing of a theory: consequences are deduced from the theory and are compared with known facts, which is something known by many. Induction, on the other hand, is used in creating hypotheses in both experimental and theoretical investigations and is again used in generalizing the results of tests (a) to all other possible tests in experimental investigation, and (b) also to some phenomena that cannot be used to test the theory created using the hypothesis, or hypotheses, that are produced inductively. When Popper claims that inductivism can be replaced by deductivism, he is unaware of the fact that induction is used at the beginning of both experimental and theoretical investigations to create hypotheses and again at the end of the investigation to generalize the test results.     But in the rest of the book, Popper concentrates on the generalization of test results, which is done through induction and is what he overlooked to begin with, as explained above. Consequently, Popper proves rightly that scientific knowledge cannot be produced using deductive logic, which is the opposite of what he tried to prove earlier.     The truth is that new knowledge is not a product of logic but is learned from the world about singular phenomena and is generalized through induction. Induction does not yield logically sure knowledge, but evolution created the human brain/mind so that it knows that it has to trust induction. Thus, everyone avoids hitting his or her head against hard objects by learning from past experience through induction. Someone who does not trust such inductive knowledge is punished severely. Similarly, when a scientist or an engineer does not use an accepted theory anywhere in his or her work, he or she is likely to be punished by failure and its consequences of many kinds.    Popper's views should serve to waken up those who seek the comfort of producing all knowledge through deduction only, but in fact, they shed doubt mostly on theories, because a theory is not deduced from anywhere, unlike empirical knowledge is, about some singular phenomena. A theory is constructed and tested by using induction or deduction, as necessary, at various stages of the total process on the basis of empirical knowledge. Popper's views are those of a philosopher who is not familiar with the mission and methods of science and thinks that science is about discovering something that can be called the absolute truth. Read also my evaluation of Kuhn's views.    Another erroneous idea of Popper is that theories can be falsified but cannot be verified. It is true that if a new theory is falsified by a few or even a single test, there is usually no more wish to keep testing it. But when an accepted theory is falsified by one phenomenon, it is not discarded as invalid. Its use continues where it gives good results. It is also true that a theory cannot be verified in an absolute sense, but this is true also about empirical knowledge. The generality of any knowledge is a consequence of induction which is forced upon the mind by the results of evolution, as mentioned. The verification of a theory, or any knowledge, means that it can be used where it gives useful results. Unfortunately, the impossibility of the logical or experimental validation of knowledge in a general way is seen as a weakness of only theories by those who ignore what a theory is and how it is constructed, tested, and used.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: I  LOST CHROMOSOMES READING THIS BOOK! . I don't know what to say about this book. It is the single worst book I have ever read in my young life.  I feel like I've witnessed a horrible tragedy and am at a loss for words to describe it.  I would say at some point in the book, maybe about halfway, every line of dialogue, every characterization, every plot point, is absolutely terrible.  This book is truly an offense to literacy, and I cannot understand how a publisher of any merit or author could publish and print this trash.  I can only imagine that Robin Cook either allowed a child to write this book,or was chronically drunk while writing it. Either that or he has lost his faculties altogether. I have read children's essays that have been better written.  While it would take a novel to explain all the problems with this book, the highlights are:  -knowing the mystery 50 pages into the book and being forced to painfully watch the dumb characters discover the mystery  -cliche mania with lines like, "I going to get to the bottom of this mystery" and when the character's discover something, giving each other high-fives.  -racist remarks about blacks living in harlem about how they like to steal televisions, own guns, and play basketball.  -stereotype characters such as mafioso that like to eat spaghetti and named dominick and vinny.  -incredible suspension of disbelief when the heros, nyc coroners, fly off to africa on a moments notice because they want to finish their case of a dead body. (also paying for their friends to come too)  -wandering around the main installation easily where the evildoers are working, and asking questions, and getting answers to them real easy.  -incredible annoying characters that make inappropriate jokes. (i.e. making sarcastic remarks to a guy holding a gun on them)  -the book spirals into total madness in the last 50 pages to a beyond implausible ending. I got a sense whoever wrote the end of book was on sleeping pills when he wrote it.  If anyone thinks this book is better than two stars, they need their head examined.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: sisters in crime . The best thing about Case Histories is that it is not a murder mystery. Kate Atkinson's novel has many of the characteristics of a traditional murder mystery - sympathetic gumshoe, unsolved crimes, supernumerary suspects, and cats - but the story is more a study of the confusion inherent in the innocent interactions of sisters and daughters.     I was pleased by the lifelike, sympathetic presentation of the two male characters. Unfortunately the many female characters never lifted off the page.     The plot of Case Histories consists of three unrelated cold cases. All the dramatic tension of the book consists of the promise that these cases will be connected by their resolution. But this resolution fails to materialize. The detective solves one murder, the perpetrator casually confesses to a second, and the third is disclosed only in an anonymous flashback. And the cats live happily ever after
[A]:
POS