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: Given he's both a playboy billionaire, and previous movies have shown he manufactured his suits himself, I'd say it's safe to assume he fabricated them using his own resources. He came out to the public as Iron Man at the end of the first film, so he doesn't really need to be completely covert when it comes to building these things, and can easily afford his own facilities to handle the job. Given he's also a genius at robotics, it shouldn't be hard for him to build a facility to fabricate his suits using next to no human interaction as well. I believe during the first movie you see him issuing commands to Jarvis about how to paint the updated suit, after he asks Jarvis how close it is to being fully built.  <sep>  Q: How did Tony Stark get his new suits? A: previous movies have shown he manufactured his suits himself, I'd say it's safe to assume he fabricated them using his own resources  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about Iron Man?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did the CIA want?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  Q: What did Charlie take one of? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these  Q: Why did Charlie kill four people? A: The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what weapon is used in the movie?
[EX A]:
Yes