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: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually. I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of, making the translation very rudimentary and child-like. Or possibly, if there was not a robust movie industry in that nation in the early 1980s, the quality of the output was considered pretty poor. Or some combination of the two. So, languages that were pretty common in the "western" and US part of the world would not work, even if the country was not really familiar (where the language was Spanish, French, German or Italian) or if there were not examples of any movies from a country. Portuguese? Maybe, but a Slavic or Balkan nation or language would be ideal for that line. Probably not Poland, because there was already a Polish stereotype about intelligence that was commonly used in jokes, so there might be some confusion about intent. "Czech" was merely chosen because it's a country an English speaking audience would be aware of, but there would be almost no movies, as of that time, that anyone could reference, making it an obscure scenario. They could have easily used Romania, Bulgaria, but could not use Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, etc (nations that were, at that time, considered part of the USSR).  <sep>  Q: What's wrong with subtitles for a Czech movie, as referenced in Tootsie? A: I don't think it's a Czech-specific quip, actually  Q: Why does Julie say my lines sound like subtitles for a Czech movie? A: I believe the idea is that the lines are crude and not very intelligently written, as if someone were translating actual decent dialogue from a language they have poor command of  Q: Is there something characteristic about the...like bad grammar? A: Czech" was merely chosen because it's a country an English speaking audience would be aware of, but there would be almost no movies, as of that time, that anyone could reference  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, anything else you can tell me about Tootsie?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  Q: So how did Agent J's father die? A: was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K  Q: Oh, so do you think that he was stoical and cranky because he felt guilty about that? A: he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures  Q: Wow, so does Agent J know this is how his father dies? A: Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok, How does Agent K deal with his guilt - does he try to fix it or make it up to J?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress. Samaritan could hear what the waitress said to him as well. Enough was the same for Samaritan to draw a line between the two identities. Bear in mind, in an early episode that Finch mentions how a series of almost totally unrelated facts are linked together by the Machine to determine the perpetrator of a crime. It doesn't take much if you can see and hear everything (and process it quick enough) to spot the connections. Perhaps it wasn't entirely conclusive, but nobody ever said that Samaritan insists on absolute proof before choosing an action. Once that connection was made, Samaritan could have analysed facial markers, his gait while walking, his voice records etc to achieve whatever level of proof it determined necessary to define Harold as a threat and to send its assets after him.  <sep>  Q: How did Finch's cover identity get blown? A: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened when his identity was blown?

A:
No
****