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]: Unkindness as Philosophy . THE FOUNTAINHEAD has been described by one of its many followers - yes, followers, not readers, for the book is essentially unreadable -- as a "passionate defense of individualism [that] presents an exalted view of man's creative potential."   This is a fair description, although it points unintentionally to the book's main flaw:  it is not a novel, but a tract posing as a novel.        Traditional progressive novels tend to be suspicious of the exalted, especially of those who occupy exalted positions based on birth or social class. In the case of Ms. Rand, the exalted are those rare individuals who, like herself, must be allowed to work their will upon the world because they believe themselves exalted.  A circular argument at best, a bad faith argument in truth, this tacit nod to the slow ascent of the common man and woman since the Enlightenment spares Ms. Rand from plumping for monarchy which, even by today's repellent neo-conservatives standards, is universally seen to be repellent.    Because her main character, Howard Roark, architect extraordinaire, is an argument and not recognizably a person, he not surprisingly suffers from a lack of inner-animation.  Sensitive readers will chafe against the underlying and predictable framework that ultimately treats characters as props for Ms. Rand's objectivist philosophy, an anti-progressive stew of prejudices posing as a critique of the welfare state and its "leveling effects."      Here's the problem with her "philosophy:"  for every Howard Roark it raises up as Hero, it writes off millions of people as unworthy of our interest, our sympathy and our compassion. Unkindness is not a philosophy most find acceptable.  With THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Rand attempted to make it so and has managed to fool many.  Because she has, she is therefore lauded by her conservative followers because her apologia absolves them of any responsibility for the fate of their fellow men and women.       Regrettably, this book and her other tendentious work, ATLAS SHRUGGED, have found their way into the backpacks of idealistic college students.  One suspects that many, because their relative youth causes them to see themselves as unique individuals, are seduced by the notion that they, too, are slated for Heroic status.  I have nothing against people having heroes; young people especially should have them.  But Howard Roark is no hero.  He's a stick figure that represents a hero.  I suspect too, that because of their general unreadability, students think the books are "deep."     In retrospect, it seems true that those people whom I knew in college who didn't finish this tract-posing-as-a-novel were people who tended to be relatively reasonable in their social and political views.  Those who did finish it, on the other hand, tended to be immoderate and dogmatic.   Judging by some of the reviews posted here,  this probably remains true today.
[A]: NEG


[Q]: This man is a visionary and a genius . If only Washington could embrace the ideas laid out in this book.  I think Newt would make a fresh and bright addition to the McCain administration.  Perhaps even VP.  Newt does have everything one needs to be the president, however not in 2008.  The conditions disallow the risk of running anything but a sure thing to stave off the potential nightmare that both Hillary or Al Gore represent.  But Newt's knowledge and wisdom will flow freely throughout the coming political process and his message will be heard.  Bravo
[A]: POS


[Q]: Concise and Precise . This concise introduction to critical thinking presents rules for clear thinking, valid communications, and creating and assessing persuasive arguments. Its 87 brief pages are readily accessible to high school students, and useful to anyone interested in offering correct evidence and valid reasons to support conclusions.  When so much of what we read, hear, and see is intended to persuade us, or even mislead us, it is important to distinguish valid arguments from careless or manipulative ones.    If good writing is clear thinking made visible, then this book provides excellent advice for writers. As a rulebook, it begins by presenting 30 rules for clearly constructing a valid case supporting your conclusion. It then turns to applying these rules for writing argumentative essays. It also treats fallacies and includes an appendix on correct use of definitions. The author recognizes this book is only an introduction to these topics and provides a good list of further reading.    Fallacies are seductive and often go unnoticed and unchallenged. In this book, many fallacies are described alongside the rules they violate. A short chapter then names and briefly describes many types of fallacies. I would have liked to see this expanded. We have long recognized sexist and racist language and work to purge it from use. I look forward to a time when a broader set of fallacies will be routinely recognized and corrected in everyday conversation. Perhaps then it will be common to interrupt the speaker to say something like: "Excuse me, but you just used the fallacy of modus ponens by affirming the consequent. Please correct that logic error before proceeding."
[A]:
POS