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:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot? A: There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality  Q: That's interesting, what else can you tell me about the production? A: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When was this film made?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: Largely he gains his confidence from Tony Stark. Their working together and sharing their personal issues caused Banner to rethink the way he thought of "the other guy". Stark coped with his condition by turning it into the Iron Man, and helping others. Banner still feared what "the other guy" would do when unleashed. This was then reinforced after he is induced into becoming the Hulk on the Helicarrier. Upon awaking in the abandoned warehouse and learning the Hulk aimed for it to prevent casualties, Banner came to realize that the Hulk isn't always a danger to others. Thusly he chose to join the other heroes in New York City to defend Earth, whereas earlier in the film he had made it abundantly clear that his only role was to identify the location of the Tesseract.  <sep>  Q: Why does Banner finally allow the Hulk to come out?
Example Output:
Yes