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: NOTE: OBSA (One Big Spoiler Alert) His character relied on common sense of all seamen, as he saw it. There are several instances throughout the movie where his character makes statements to his crew as to why he's doing things the way he is, which, while unpopular at the outset, made sense and was bought into after the explanation. He used this same common sense seamanship to bring the conclusion which happened. With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas. He didn't know the Russian ship was going to fire on the base, but was hoping for some kind of resolution which didn't require his boat to fire. While he was given the order to fire from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Donnegan, he knew it would create bigger issues and further hostilities. Having the Russian Captain Andropov onboard and believing in him was a good step towards making this happen. Without Andropov, it probably wouldn't have turned out the same way. He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action. It wasn't that he forced someone else to fire, he only hoped it would happen without his having to do it. In the end, everything worked out for the best (ex machina?).  <sep>  Q: How did Gerard Butler resolve the ending of Hunter Killer? A: With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas  Q: How was Bulter's character able to get the warship to fire the missiles? A: He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he want to blow up the bad guys?
Output: 


Answer: No