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's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition.  <sep>  Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun  Q: What other reason would their be? A: There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles  Q: Is there another reason why? A: After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they like doing it?
Output: 


Answer: Yes