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.

Example Input: An unwieldy translation . In a nutshell: Don't waste your money on this version.    The original version of this translation dates to just after the turn of the century, but the introduction and further editing by Anatol Rapaport (a biologist and a musician, not a political scientist or historian), make this a clumsy read at best and downright misleading at worst.    Rapaport, for being an editor of Clausewitz, was not a believer in the trinitarian system (primordial violence, non-rational actions, and rationality)- probably not a good choice for a work which owes as much as it does to the first and second Trinities (army, people, and government).    If this is the only one you can get, then live with it.  The first chance you get, get the much clearer, much more straightforward Paret/Howard translation, which is the one that's actually taught at most service schools as well as in universities in their courses that use it
Example Output: NEG

Example Input: Violates the False Claims Act . Wow. I was shocked. Legitimate statements of liberal Christianity include ones like, 'Transubstantiation is mistaken', 'The Vatican does not have a direct pipeline to God', 'Homosexuality is not a sin', 'Condoms and birth control are morally defensible', NOT 'Jesus never performed miracles', 'The trinity does not exist', 'Jesus is not the Son of God.' It is disingenuous for Spong to assert he is a Christian when he disavows ALL the major tenets of the religion - virgin birth, miracles, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, the trinity, and the deity of Jesus. He believes less in a religion per se and more in a code of ethical conduct like, say, Confucianism, and the "patronizing nonsense" (a la C.S. Lewis) that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher. He even says on page 229, "...a religionless Christianity must be born." Religionless Christianty?! That's a contradiction in terms. Mr. Spong sounds like an ethicist, not a religionist. He also owes Saint Paul an apology for rumor-mongering when the man has long been absent and not around to defend himself.    I do admit though, I liked a lot his discourse on the plight of women and mens' subconscious fear of them. I also liked his observations on homosexuality. What he had to say about Judas was also interesting (but misleading as it is based solely on his own suppositions, not evidence). The section on anti-semitism was informative but that whole subject has always struck me as odd to begin with, i.e., that a Christian could hate or resent a Jew. Very odd.    I'm sure we've all noticed that bible-interpetation discussions are on the same road as capital punishment, birth control, gun control, and abortion: I'm Right and You're Wrong Avenue. Especially with bible interpretation, words and phraseology are open to diverse translations, and theologians themselves disagree.    Oh, and here's my two cents on the Council of Nicea. Of course the Christian theologians had to discuss Christian doctrine and record it for posterity. Of course Christianity had to be, dare I say, 'corporatized' in a way. How can the Word spread without an efficient distribution channel? The remarkable thing is that it did not happen much sooner. You see now, though, how it is very easy for anyone with an advanced intellect (such as Spong) to take the very (true) words I have just said in this paragraph and make it sound convincingly like, "You see!..he admits it..corporatized!..distribution channels!..surely there was wheeling and dealing...these people were not serious...blah blah blah."    I offer one piece of advice. However, I admit I base this advice on my belief that: 1) An all-loving God exists, 2) the gospels are historically accurate, 3) Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and 4) the bible is divinely inspired. Whenever a bible passage irks you, enrages you, or just generally creates any type of irritation in you, remember that YOU are the one thinking about it. And you're not God.
Example Output: NEG

Example Input: Confusing and long-winded . This was the first of Ms. Peters' books that I read.  Maybe if I had had the background of the other books, I would have found it more interesting.  As it was, I kept thinking "Get on with it already". There were too many exceprts about Nefret and her hubby and then it would switch back to Peabody and Emerson, and it rarely went back to the murder. When it did, there were so many characters and so many nicknames for characters that I was totally confused and often had to go back in the book to see who was who. The setting in this book and Peabody's wit kept me reading, though.
Example Output:
NEG