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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: This irks me too, but I'm certain it's done to convey to the audience that the character is actually drinking. It's one of those tropes that people have become accustomed to, even though it isn't realistic. It's similar to the trope of "every time you turn on a microphone, it whines with feedback for a second, then settles down." Not realistic, but it clearly shows the audience what's going on.  <sep>  Q: Why does TV shows always make a full drink sound like an almost empty one?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I think it comes down to one point - can one mind actively dream two or more states simultaneously. For the dream within a dream thing to work .... the dreamer in level 1 (Yusuf) has to dream the Pasiv (sleep) machine into existence, in order to allow people to go down to the next level (the hotel dream of Arthur). For someone to simultaneously be maintaining level 1 and be able to go to 'sleep' and maintain level 2 seems unlikely - you'd essentially have to be 'awake' in each dream state. So it appears for the dream within a dream thing to work, you need as many people to dream as levels you wish to descend. This appears to be why Cobb wants Yusuf to 'go into the field', as he needs 3 dream levels (Yusuf, Arthur, Eames) - and he does not want to be a dreamer himself (for obvious reasons), and Ariadne was a late addition to the team.  <sep>  Q: Was it impossible to go into same person's dream each level down, or did it serve a purpose? A: I think it comes down to one point - can one mind actively dream two or more states simultaneously  Q: Why did they have to choose a different person each time they went one level deeper in Inception? A: For the dream within a dream thing to work .... the dreamer in level 1 (Yusuf) has to dream the Pasiv (sleep) machine into existence  Q: Couldn't they have kept going into Yusuf's dream all the way down? A: This appears to be why Cobb wants Yusuf to 'go into the field', as he needs 3 dream levels (Yusuf, Arthur, Eames  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many dream levels are there?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX 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: Oh I see, what publication did he work for?
[EX A]:
No