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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living? A: Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith  Q: DO they all stay in one place? A: the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many contacts exactly?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: 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?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: 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: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints? A: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park  Q: Oh right I see, what about the scene in general, can you explain more? A: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Bars not suspect anything was wrong?


Output: Yes