TASK 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:`.
PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: For US Federal civilian employees, there is no prohibition against having spouses (or immediate family members) working in the same agency or even the same unit. The only prohibition is that one of them cannot be in a supervisory chain of command above the other (conflict of interest/nepotism). I'm fairly certain state agencies would have similar restrictions as well. As in any workplace setting, it depends on the culture of the agency (fictional CBI in this instance) or personalities of those involved/affected on how much coworker dating relationships are on the down-low. It can vary. Normally it's not a big deal unless a supervisor starts dating his/her subordinate or something like that. It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field. So the characters might want keep it on the DL just to avoid it coming up in office politics/rumor mill/etc.  <sep>  Q: Is it forbidden to have a relationship in CBI in reality? A: It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field  Q: Is CBI a real thing in America or was it made up for the Mentalist? A: fictional CBI in this instance  Q: Is there a comparable department in the US in reality? A: US Federal civilian employees  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they allowed to have personal relationships while working together or will they have to quit their jobs like the CBI agents?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: By this point in the narrative, Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire. The affair with the bullets missing him in Marvin's apartment had convinced him that God had a higher purpose for him, and by allowing Ringo to take what he needed, Jules was ensuring that he wouldn't have to kill him for attempting to rob him. This was the first step towards Jules' new life. He was not only buying/saving Ringo's life, but also his own.  <sep>  Q: What should I know about the scene?

SOLUTION:
Yes