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: There were no proofs of charging Surjan by Rosie. She acted to Surjan like she wanted to help him because she liked him(or maybe she tried to seduce him so that he finally accepts to sleep with her!) and also wanted to finish the bad things happening around the red light area. Rosie spent too much time with him and it is also true that she could get her revenge without helping him. But she wanted not only to kill them but also to show the world what they did to her and why did such accidents occur and they deserved death sentence. At last everybody including Surjan came to know what they did. This is what she wanted. Another point also to be considered that like Frenny told "Dissatisfied souls seek other dissatisfied souls(whether living or dead)". Surjan was in pain, so maybe she thought of helping him as he was in pain due to his sons sudden death. After all till the end of the movie it is evident Surjan started believing in ghosts.  <sep>  Q: In the 2012 movie, Talaash, Did Rosie charge Surjan Singh for the endless talking by the river side he did for a few days? A: There were no proofs of charging Surjan by Rosie  Q: also, Syrjan Singh must have been suspicious if she didn;t. After-all she was a 'fancy lady' A: She acted to Surjan like she wanted to help him because she liked him(or maybe she tried to seduce him so that he finally accepts to sleep with her  Q: Why did Rosie spent so much time with Surjan Singh at all? A: Rosie spent too much time with him and it is also true that she could get her revenge without helping him  Q: So she could have got her revenge without doing it right? A: she wanted not only to kill them but also to show the world what they did to her and why did such accidents occur and they deserved death sentence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: That sounds right
Output: 


Answer: Yes