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.
One example is below.
Q: Hopeful for those who seek harmony in the world . I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who thinks that religious wars, repression of individual spirits or rape of the earth are good things. Those who seek peace, harmony, celebration of each of us and respect for  our earth will find this hopeful
A: POS
Rationale: The overall sentiment of the review is positive as the reviewer mentions positive expressions such as 'hopeful', 'will find this helpful' etc.. Hence, the label is 'POS'.
Q: What's Beneath Your Syntactic Interface? . Maggie Balistreri's critique of our masked, substantively evasive dialect offers humorous, albeit troubling, insight into how much of the social fabric, the prevailing belief structures and cultural processes, are entrenched in mass denial, subsisting on and predicated upon the avoidance of truth and meaning within common, everday conversations and exchanges.  Think of it as speaking in riddles. Unfortunately, it's done considerable damage in shaping the broader public discourse.      This particular deficiency is widely adhered to on an unconscious level, to the extent that it's accepted as 'normal'.  Let's suppose that the majority of a population shared a common mental illness, a soul sickness; isn't it possible, even likely, that over time, a greater percentage of them would be unable to acknowledge the disease ...*as a disease?*   And by that postulation, wouldn't the afflicted then in turn deem those not likewise effected by it as the ones who are sick, weird, bad, wrong, etc?     With people generally unaware of this process(and likely uninterested in it)they are incapable of acknowledging how cognition and grammer are fused in a manner indicative of a deficient, or at least insufficient, mode of consciousness and expression which is congrous to self deception, mass deception, and in turn, self and societal censorship.      This elaborate process largely stems from the "Just Do It" corporatized mentality. The underlying, strategic message of "Just Do It" is DON'T THINK. That is, don't think beyond the superficialities of life: of a mindless, wage slave existence relegated to the various conformities of rampant consumerism, and all it entails to define human worth and "success" on such terms.    When people don't think beyond those terms, when the customary, daily round of life is beset with a deluge of incentives and inducements toward desensitization and immediate gratification rooted in the manipulation and exploitation of innate human insecurities, often through induced signals and social cues concerning inadequacy, fear, anxiety, the result is an unthinking, non critical, homogeneous conformity among the populace where the surrender or denial of critical thought, genuine expression and emotional respression is widely encouraged, enabling an overall acceptance and exaltation of a unique spiritual and intellectual paralysis.   Logically it follows that since most are environmentally impacted and absorbed into this deficiency, its symptoms and manifestations are largely viewed as the opposite of what they really are, allowing for a delusional, happy consciousness. Language reflects this.    My take on what Maggie is addressing in her book isn't a random social trend, and that there isn't necessarily a direct correlation with this dilemma and a person's overall intelligence or vocabulary; it's an inevitable byproduct of poisonous, corporatized values.   The proof is how corporate power, which is basically the hierarchy of government, so obviously benefits in every way from the crisis of social and spiritual declivity.   The greater the degree of ignorance, apathy, and general disharmony, the greater profits to be made from human misery, and the more draconian measures that can be implemented by exploiting the symptoms which then serves to frighten people into being less independent minded and more stupified, perpetuating the cycle.    The psychological dynamics of these cycles are fairly simple to figure out provided people are encouraged to do so.  If they're not sufficiently roused into paying attention to matters of great public import(something that the media should do but of course does just the opposite)than naturally, the people's language and efforts of communication are going to reflect a particularly narrow mindset.    "Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul" ~ Mark Twai
A:
POS