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: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie. We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him...let's assume they do... I don't remember where I heard this but there's a scene that's not in the movie. The second side of the head piece contains more info than just the 'correct' staff length. Also written on the back side are instructions not to look into the Ark...this is how Indy knows to 'KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT' when the Ark is opened. Indy learns this when he and Sallah have the head piece translated...don't know why this was left out of the movie...bad dates, maybe. Anyway, without Indy, either a) they never find the ark because they don't get the head piece without him, or b) they obtain the ark with the complete head piece but aren't killed by it because they have the instructions not to look at it. Sorry, Amy.  <sep>  Q: Is Amy right about Indiana Jones being irrelevant to the outcome? A: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie  Q: Why isn't Amy right though? Even Sheldon accepts that she is A: We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Amy ruined the movie for the guys?
Output: 


Answer: No