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: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name? A: I've changed my name to Saul  Q: Why did Jimmy change his name? A: discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations  Q: Cool, is there anything else you can tell me? A: Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I understand. Is there anything else?
Output: 


Answer: Yes