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:`.

CONTEXT: As in the English language, names used to describe a person or a group of persons have mutated into their last name, similar to those whose last name is a profession. In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country, and so far it hasn't spread much around the country. If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country. So, being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens, they pick one they could relate to.  <sep>  Q: Explanation of "Lucumi"? A: In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Any other explanations? A: being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens  Q: Where do Lucimi people live? A: the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Anything else you can tell me about Lucumi? A: If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any other important info about it?
No

CONTEXT: NOTE: OBSA (One Big Spoiler Alert) His character relied on common sense of all seamen, as he saw it. There are several instances throughout the movie where his character makes statements to his crew as to why he's doing things the way he is, which, while unpopular at the outset, made sense and was bought into after the explanation. He used this same common sense seamanship to bring the conclusion which happened. With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas. He didn't know the Russian ship was going to fire on the base, but was hoping for some kind of resolution which didn't require his boat to fire. While he was given the order to fire from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Donnegan, he knew it would create bigger issues and further hostilities. Having the Russian Captain Andropov onboard and believing in him was a good step towards making this happen. Without Andropov, it probably wouldn't have turned out the same way. He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action. It wasn't that he forced someone else to fire, he only hoped it would happen without his having to do it. In the end, everything worked out for the best (ex machina?).  <sep>  Q: How did Gerard Butler resolve the ending of Hunter Killer?
Yes

CONTEXT: They didn't change the whole climax scene. In one version Rudra's father saying him that the girl he loved is actually his step sister, so he can not marry her. On the other hand, the scene is same but there is no dialogue as it is muted and audience needs to understand from their reaction and background score. This change was made because the film got poor audience response due to the dialogue delivery of the conversation.  <sep>  Q: What are the differences between two climax of Solo?

Yes