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: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain. We see hundreds of kids in the compound in the scorch trials. Killing a few kids isn't a problem. Not that we know they died. The kids the Grievers kill are never shown dying on screen. They could just as easily be non mortally wounded and captured. Since it happens off scene we can't tell.  <sep>  Q: Why would WCKD use Grievers? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  Q: How many kids are there and how many did they kill? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did they not pick something other than the kids?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: He was talking about the entire source code project (getting in someone else's body) and trying to explain to her what was really going on to make her understand/help him. As he realizes his actions might seem strange, he tries to convince her to go with it. She dismisses it as it doesn't seem important (only dreams) and flirts with him  <sep>  Q: What does the conversation mean?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision. Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition. The factual accuracy of his human/horse features is a different discussion altogether. As you point out, it's not all that consistent. For a comedy cartoon, that's well within the expected range of accuracy: it serves a particular joke in a particular scene.  <sep>  Q: Are the characters in BoJack Horseman really anthropomorphic? A: You're using "anthropomorphic" with way too much precision  Q: Why do you say too much precision? A: Bojack is an anthropomorphic character because he is a horse that behaves like a human. End of definition  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why in the world would Bojack say he weighs 1200 pounds?
[A]:
Yes