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: When Loki tries to take control of Stark he actually hits the ARC reactor and not the flesh over his heart. Your graphic explains it best with the "Tink, Tink" sound showing that Loki is actually hitting the metal of the reactor. In the Avengers director commentary, Joss Whedon states it fails to work because the ARC reactor prevents the staff from reaching Tony's heart.  <sep>  Q: Can Loki finally control Tony Stark's mind? A: When Loki tries to take control of Stark he actually hits the ARC reactor and not the flesh over his heart  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the arc made of?
answer:
No


question:
CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Håkan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in? A: neither Håkan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Can you tell me anything else about this movie? A: Oskar will grow old just like Håkan  Q: Is there anything else you can tell me? A: Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh wow, I see, why was he castrated?
answer:
No


question:
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong?
answer:

Yes