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: 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?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: While we will never know as neither boat used their detonator, I would suggest that they had each others, going purely on what was shown and what the film makers were trying to say. The Joker's previous 'gag' - which also failed - was to try and get Gothamites to kill each other for own protection or self interest as he believed it would demonstrate a general moral bankruptcy. 'You failed to kill the lawyer...' - I cannot remember how the rest of the line goes but the boat finale appears to come from a desire to repeat the exercise and Batman puts the emphasis on all of this in his final rebuke. The film also goes a long way to show that both sets of passengers specifically reject the opportunity to kill each other - even for self defence. If a comic source for this plot line does actually show this as a double - bluff then it is still irrelevant to what was actually said and shown in 'The Dark Knight'.  <sep>  Q: What did the Joker's detonators actually target?
[A]:
Yes