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: Dawson was not called to testify as a legal maneuver. Criminal defense lawyers know when to withhold a testimony by the accused, because that would open up the prosecution's questions of his character. Dawson had the illegal fence-line shooting in his recent history where he shot at his counterpart. This was the same shooting Santiago reported, and was using to bargain his release from detail at Guantanamo.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dawson not called to testify?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: 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?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: Different question: Why shouldn't it be the case, i.e. have the same timespan per incarnation? Don't forget that all these three regenerations weren't triggered due to any natural/inherent reason (like dieing of old age). The ninth Doctor absorbed the vortex energy from Rose and the tenth Doctor absorbed the radiation from that completely weird and odd failsafe containment thingy. Neither of them regenerated by choice. Also keep in mind that timespans are hardly constant when comparing single episodes. While this is especially true for time travelling stuff, it's also true for pretty much any other TV series or movie (maybe except 24). For example, take episodes such as Rose or Aliens of London. The story happening in those essentially covers a day or two each. Compare this to episodes with far longer timespans, e.g. The Impossible Astronaut and the sequel: Those cover several months. Or, if you want it even more time bending: Blink happens on a single day for the audience as well as for the characters depicted in the present. However, for the Doctor (and Martha) obviously months pass.  <sep>  Q: Why did the 11th doctor live so long compared with his predecessors?
[A]:
Yes