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: The Yellow clothes are a type of 'Elder Endorsement', a ratification or 'pass'. The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder, so it is a sanctioned activity. If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there. It's unlikely the 'beasts' would harm her, but they'd certainly interfere and try and scare her off/back to the village. Ivy possibly doesn't know what they're capable of. Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing, but within the narrative of the film her maintaining her cloak's yellow lustre removes that possibility.  <sep>  Q: Why was Ivy concerned with wiping the mud off of her yellow cloak?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: This is not really explicitly explained in the film (it's only briefly mentioned), but implicitly: Anton Ego is a famous critic known for scathing reviews and an extremely finicky taste. When Linguini holds a press conference, Ego arrives and announces in front of the reporters that he'll be reviewing Linguini's restaurant - so this review is highly publicized and anticipated. Then, surprisingly, not only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats. So it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder. [Also bear in mind that his experience with Remy was a real eye-opener and changed his beliefs. Since the film doesn't specify when Ego lost his job and reputation, it's possible he continued to write reviews that were significantly mellower (since he now also believed in Chef Gusteau's notion that 'anyone can cook'), and that his fanbase was disappointed and simply stopped reading them.]  <sep>  Q: What was the reason Anton Ego lost his job? A: he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats  Q: I thought he didn't mention rats in his review? A: ot only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France  Q: Why did Anton lose his reputation if he didn't mention anything about rats? A: it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does Ratatouille mean?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: Because we don't shoot people for kicking chairs! The SOE official has the gun to defend himself if attacked. Vatan isn't attacking the official (or the Army officer) he's just kicking the chair in frustration and outrage....and that's not something to be shot for! Equally, the SOE need Vatan to keep Marianne in place while they identify her handler...another reason not to shoot him.  <sep>  Q: Why S.O.E official didn't shoot Max Vatan for not allowing him to investigate Marianne? A: Because we don't shoot people for kicking chairs  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do they shoot people for?
[A]:
Yes