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: In the books it is yet to be discovered if he is brought back to life for what greater purpose. But one thing is for sure, it isn't just one thing he did, but many. Probably in the books he is the one who kills the Night King, because it was clear from David Benioff's interview that they wanted to subvert expectations, they wanted someone who was not Jon to kill the Night King. So I think in the books he came back to life for also killing the NK. He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things. Defeated Ramsay, showed the World that the dead are coming, prepared for the Long Night and battle of Winterfell. Successfully defeating NK would not have been possible without him. What the Lord of Light could have wanted? Well, we don't even know what LoL was, didn't know what his intentions were, who were his enemy but one thing we know for sure, all victories inevitably came at a cost. To bring a new World, Jon Snow had to stab his love in the belly. So there we have the Azor Ahai theory jumping in, not totally similar but was a good deal.  <sep>  Q: What was the purpose of bringing back Jon? A: He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think it was to kill Daenerys?
Output: 


Answer: No