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: The ending is sort of symbolic and up for interpretation. My interpretation of it was after Queen Anne had her stroke and dealing with the effects of it she is now living in misery. She is sort of alone having only Abigail left who the Queen is somewhat realizing is frivolous and cruel. She had banished Sarah (Rachel Weisz's character) whom she clearly felt a bond with so her mood is further dampened cause of that. And to add suffering a stroke on top of all that it has only left her feeling alone and miserable. The montage of rabbits consumes the screen, each rabbit a reminder of each of the Queen's deceased children she lost in childbirth. The misery consumes the screen and the life of the queen and those that try to curry her favor. Abigail's face is pained and sad as she has to bow and bend to the Queen's whims. I think that is what the montage of rabbits is supposed to represent but that is up to interpretation I think.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending of "The Favourite" mean? A: The ending is sort of symbolic and up for interpretation  Q: What do you mean by symbolic, what does it symbolize? A: My interpretation of it was after Queen Anne had her stroke and dealing with the effects of it she is now living in misery  Q: What does the montage of Rabbits mean then in this context? A: each rabbit a reminder of each of the Queen's deceased children she lost in childbirth  Q: So the rabbits are supposed to be the queens dead children? A: The misery consumes the screen and the life of the queen and those that try to curry her favor  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many children did the queen lose in childbirth?
Output: 


Answer: No