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 Q]: A slippery, shoddy, and dishonest book . This is one of the very worst books on law and legal theory I have ever read. The authors deliberately confuse important issues, libel those with whom they disagree, and string together a series of logical fallacies in order to reach a set of conclusions they favor for other reasons. Readers who waste their time on this book will learn nothing of law and -- strikingly -- less than nothing of legal philosophy
[EX A]: NEG

[EX Q]: strong stories; read by a fantastic actor (Paul Winfield) . These stories, as read by the great actor Paul Winfield, are powerful testaments to life, love, hard times, etc.. These stories and their central character, Socrates Fortlow, are fine examples of a man, who did wrong, seeks redemption, and tries hard to make amends. The continuing theme of the crime which he committed ties them all together. Mr. Winfield's reading cuts across all racial barriers, to teach all of us, black and white, about one man's struggle(s) with his demons. His reading also adds passion and depth to Mr. Mosley's writing. I'd highly recommend these stories (in audio and print). [Refers to the audio edition.
[EX A]: POS

[EX Q]: Abner Kneeland . To prove America is a Christian nation David Barton cites the little known blasphemy conviction of Abner Kneeland. During the 1830s Kneeland,a former Universalist turned pantheist, was sentenced to sixty days in a Boston jail for ridiculing the deity of Christ. Barton cites Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland as example of how early American jurisprudence defended Christianity. Either David Barton is a sloppy scholar or he is a man with a scary agenda. Does Barton believe that state governments should have the power to jail people for stating religious opinions contrary to his? Why else would he cite the Kneeland case? Kneeland should only be a curious anachronism, not a legal precedent.
[EX A]:
NEG