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: A properly executed plot twist often causes opposite reactions of what you've just described. People want to watch the movie again because the ending was so unexpected that they need to review the whole thing to get all the puzzle pieces together. "Fight Club" is a great example, in my opinion. There's a lot of dialogue (especially the lines from Helena Bonham Carter) that doesn't make any sense if you don't know the ending. You will enjoy and understand Fight Club much better after a second view. There are many ingredients that define the quality and longevity of a movie. Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience.  <sep>  Q: Is there any evidence of "Big Twist" movies having poor post-cinema sales? A: Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience  Q: Do you think this is a common reaction though? A: A properly executed plot twist often causes opposite reactions of what you've just described  Q: So, for up ad coming directors, is this the type of movie to stay away from A: Directors should not be afraid to use a plot twist, but relying only on this trick - especially if it is predictable - may ruin the whole experience  Q: Is there evidence to suggest that this type of film have relatively poor post-cinema sales? A: People want to watch the movie again because the ending was so unexpected that they need to review the whole thing to get all the puzzle pieces together  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh I see, don't you think it could spoil the enjoyment of the viewing?
Output: 


Answer: Yes