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:`.

Q: CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany"

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted, it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques. What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input. The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good. In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich, he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen.  <sep>  Q: Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted? A: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted  Q: Why is their pushback that it was done? A: it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is that a problem if it got done?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  Q: Is that the only reason? A: Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description  Q: What does his mother look like? A: Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is she described this way?

A:
Yes
****