Definition: Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them  Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Output: No

Positive Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did Spider-Man steal Captain America's shield?
Output: Yes

Negative Example 1 -
Input: CONTEXT: Logan's plan earlier in the movie was to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor, where they would spend their last days. Out on the sea, the Professor wouldn't pose a threat to other humans when he lost his control over his ability. If I am not mistaken the Professor liked that idea - being out on the sea. When he died and Logan buried him, it was near a lake, so he was at least near water - Since Logan was emotional about the death of the Professor these were the only words he managed to say as a kind of eulogy. <sep> Q: What was Logan's plan? A: to buy a sailboat and sail to the ocean with the Professor <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did logan bury Professor?
Output: No

Negative Example 2 -
Input: CONTEXT: Yes. He's supposed to be the same character. The timeline of the story arc is all over the place now but Spectre could be regarded as a prequel to the series before Daniel Craig. Some say a reboot but apparently its all supposed to be the same story. This falls apart because of Judi Denchs M, Bond's previous encounters with Spectre and Blofeld etc though. <sep> Q: Is Franz Oberhauser related to the original Blofeld? A: He's supposed to be the same character <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Bond running over the train?
Output: Yes

Now complete the following example -
Input: CONTEXT: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier. That is the essence of his fear. The real Angier will be killed every time. When you download a movie what you are doing is actually making a perfect copy of the movie. Which is the real movie? They all are. This is very different from making copies of film reels where only the original have the quality of the original (each copy adds a little imperfection). Now, the question The Prestige asks is what if you can make a perfect clone of a person the way you can perfectly copy digital data? In one sense, if we don't want to get too uncomfortable we can always say the remaining copy is now the real data and the deleted copy is not real anymore. But if you really think about it and get out of your comfort zone you will realize that both people are real and what you have done is murdered yourself. In The Prestige this point is much more clearly made as the old copied Angier becomes the one who is killed. Not the newly created clone. Every time the clone will have only the memory of the surviving Angier. But every time Angier experiences death, only the Angier that experienced death has no way of passing that memory to the surviving Angier so the survivor can never know what dying feels like.  <sep>  Q: How does it work that the clones are sentient paradox? A: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the consciousness split among the various clones?
Output: 


Answer: Yes