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:`.

CONTEXT: We don't know. All we know is that Chiron assaulted him with the chair. Certainly he was injured but we don't know the severity of the injuries. Given that Chiron is only sent to juvie it's extremely unlikely that Terrel was killed. Thus a charge of the Assault variety would seem likely but that is also unknown. We also don't know how long Chiron was in juvie but most age out of the juvenile system at 18, assuming he was tried as a minor. However, there is a 10 year time jump between the assault and when we see Chiron again so any sentence would have been less than that since Chiron has now relocated to another city, is considerably larger than before and is now established as a drug dealer.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Terrel?
Yes

CONTEXT: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book. And re-telling a book story in movie form, when you've got to get all the key details on screen in just 2 or 3 hours, means you have to omit many minor details. The core story of The Great Gatsby is about Gatsby and the world he lived in, not about Nick or Nick's potential attraction to Gatsby. In book form, there is plenty of room for the subplot suggestion that Nick is gay -- and the author Fitzgerald introduced the suggestion so subtly that most readers miss it. In the movie, however, throwing "Nick might be gay" at viewers along with everything else, in just 2 or 3 hours, could overwhelm them and/or distract from the core story -- and I'm not sure how it could be done as subtly on-screen as Fitzgerald pulled it off in the prose.  <sep>  Q: Why did the Great Gasby (2013) movie erase the hints of Nick Carraway's homosexuality? A: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would the writer include this subplot in the book?
Yes

CONTEXT: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed. The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand, a "fair" fight instead of just killing defenseless prey. (It's been a long time since I've seen the film, so can't remember exactly when/how the Predator stops using weapons).  <sep>  Q: Why did the Predator not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else? A: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed  Q: What happened to the Predator after checking arnold's head? A: The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who wins the hand to hand fight?

No