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: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence. The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge; Derek and Danny lose their father and hate consumes them. They win a basketball game against the black gang (and their turf in the process) and the gang try and steal their fathers' truck as revenge, Derek kills them over it. But then Derek's arrest interrupts this pattern, he goes off to prison and with the help of Dr. Sweeney he realises the pattern of behaviour and does what he can to prevent it from going any further. Derek has his catharsis and becomes a different person, and tries to help Danny do the same. But the problem is the same hasn't happened to those that he's wronged; there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it, and in the end Danny pays the price. It is much more poignant and reflective of real life in this way, after years of fighting it's not so simple to drop everything and get the happy ending Hollywood has taught us is waiting.  <sep>  Q: Why did American History X end so unexpectedly? A: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence  Q: But why did the movie end in such an unexpected way? A: there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it  Q: What was the central theme of the movie? A: The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge  Q: Does the movie portray revenge as a justified action? A: Derek's arrest interrupts this pattern, he goes off to prison and with the help of Dr. Sweeney he realises  Q: What does he realize? A: the pattern of behaviour and does what he can to prevent it from going any further  Q: Is he successful at preventing it given the younger brother's death? A: Derek has his catharsis and becomes a different person, and tries to help Danny do the same  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why doesn't Edward Norton do something about the Neo-Nazi group he established?
Output: 


Answer: Yes