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.

Ex Input:
Not near what I thought it would be . I was taken aback by how convoluted and overreaching this text was. I guess I expected more. I found myself having to read and reread certain paragraphs and sections of this book just to understand what Telford was attempting to say. I found his open hostility toward the traditional position of inerrancy troubling. One reviewer says that Work "shows how the paradigm of inerrancy is fatally flawed." He shows no such thing. He approaches the discussion and falls flat in his efforts. One way to make your point it to denigrate your opponent. This he did do. He seemed to imply that all who believe in inerrancy are lowbrow fundamentalists. Ultimately, Work's overhaul (i.e., paradigm shift) for viewing the Word of God was simply over the top and without warrant. I note that this book came out in November 2001, but I have yet to see Bible colleges and seminaries adopting Work's new paradigm and dialect, and with a sales ranking of 711,096, his book is likely not going to usher in his "new paradigm.

Ex Output:
NEG

Ex Input:
This is a BOARD BOOK - you know the kind with pages thick and durable enough for your toddler to chew . I mention that this is a board book because so many parents seem dissapointed by how few pages it contains. Your kids will still love it

Ex Output:
POS

Ex Input:
Style of writing is painful . Just start reading the introduction, or flip to anywhere in this book to see all you need to know about it's readability: a bit rough to say the least. For example, in the introduction, the concept of carrying binary data in a shorter period of time on a wire than several measured pulses was presented in such a confusing manner that I was forced to read it 4 times to understand what was already a simple and understood concept to me. The excessive formality of this book is a killer.. It reads at times like a formal mathematics proof book, however, at other times it is a bit more readable. Like people said.. use this for reference.. not for a textbook

Ex Output:
NEG