TASK DEFINITION: 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:`.
PROBLEM: 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?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: 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  Q: Who did the CIA want? A: Le Chiffre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the CIA agents name?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I think that they may be modeling the initial fear and then subsequent relaxing of fears in the same way HIV/AIDS was viewed initially. At first it was believed that being around people that were infected would cause you to be infected as well (drinking after someone, etc), but this was eventually dispelled. From the Dr. at the CDC, Rick learns that they have all been infected and carry a dormant form of the zombie disease, but being bitten, scratched or dying accelerates the progression. In the case of Herschel and his leg, we see that if you are able to remove the infection quick enough, one can survive a bite. This may have been different in season 1, where you see several examples of people committing suicide or dying without turning. In Season 3 and going forward, I think its understood that you don't turn till you are attacked and/or die.  <sep>  Q: As of S03E01, does walker blood have an effect on open orifices/wounds? A: At first it was believed that being around people that were infected would cause you to be infected as well (drinking after someone, etc), but this was eventually dispelled  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: During the first episode of season 3 of the walking dead, I noticed the group is now very cavalier about taking down walkers

SOLUTION:
Yes