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]: This book really upset my daughter . My daughter's kindergarten teacher read this book to them in class today and they also made an adorable craft of the old lady with cut outs of all of the animals which fit into her apron.  I thought it was so cute and hung it on our fridge.  Soon after I noticed that my daughter was acting upset, when I asked her what was wrong she broke down sobbing about how the old lady dies in the end of the song.  I haven't seen her this upset about anything in a long time.  Even after I explained to her that it was just a story and not real  she still was upset for the rest of the night.  I know that death is a topic that we all need to discuss with our children, but I'm not sure that this is the appropriate way to deal with it.  I have removed the craft that she made so she doesn't need to be reminded of it.  I know that there are a few children in her class who have lost grandparents this year and it just seems like maybe this book could bring up sad feelings for them as well
[A]: NEG


[Q]: Leaves me cold . This rates as one of the poorer mysteries I have read in years.  It was truly an ordeal to finish, and I am left wondering why I bothered.  It has a totally unbelievable plot and inconsistent characters, many of whom are  stereotypical creations of little or no interest.  I was particularly  amused when the detective was told to &quot;make a few inquiries at the  transsexual shoe shop, giving the size and style of the shoe from the  corpse&quot;.  In all of LA, I am sure there is just one known  &quot;transsexual shoe shop&quot;.  Please.  I suspect Ms. LaPlante has  better material, but this is a poor example better left unread.  I would  give it less than one star, but unfortunately that's not an option
[A]: NEG


[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