instruction:
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:`.
question:
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library? A: It is not explained, but we can theorize  Q: What is your theory? A: Internet still wasn't a thing back then  Q: John Doe knew a lot about the Seven Deadly Sins already, didn't he? A: IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the movie?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies  Q: Why does the film have so much humour? A: The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens to the man's vehicle?
answer:

No