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 haven't seen the show in a while and don't have any references handy but as i recall Louis wasn't as cool and liked by others like Harvey was. Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey. So Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward. Harvey on the other hand was careless with the money he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis. Overall depending on how you define winner or best either one of them could be worthy of those titles. You seem to view their balance sheet as the arbitrator of success, and not professional achievement in the form of being managing partner. In all reality Louis had enough money to maintain his lifestyle if he quit getting a paycheck, unlike Harvey. However, as portrayed in the show becoming managing partner and mastering the relevant politics to become the de facto leader was the holy grail. Harvey was always closer than Louis in attaining this goal, making Harvey the better man in terms of the show like it or not.  <sep>  Q: Why does Louis Litt struggle with self-esteem issues, given that he is the richest in the law firm despite getting a lower salary? A: Louis's personality made it hard for him to have the professional successes that Harvey enjoyed but that same personality made it easy for him to be a good financial steward  Q: Why does he feel more inferior to Harvey? A: Louis was always recognized as good at his job but he was never part of the in crowd, and failed at the interoffice politics necessary to rise as quickly and be as prominent as Harvey  Q: How was it discovered that Louis was the richest person in the law firm? A: he earned but his charisma allowed him to do better in the office politics of the firm leading to more professional success but a worse financial position than Louis  Q: Why were his bosses embarrassed to find out how rich he was? A: Harvey on the other hand was careless with the money  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Jessica careless with money also?
Output: 


Answer: No