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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books.  <sep>  Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show  Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books  Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series? A: A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think it might mislead the books fan into thinking the show is only about the first book?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: There were two points to that story, and both had to do with handling your business. From the snail's perspective, when life hands you lemons you make lemonade. Keep moving forward, keep persisting and eventually you can overcome everything. From the man's perspective, make sure you finish what you start because it may come back to haunt you.  <sep>  Q: Training Day, the meaning of that snail story A: There were two points to that story, and both had to do with handling your business  Q: Can you tell me more? A: From the snail's perspective, when life hands you lemons you make lemonade. Keep moving forward, keep persisting and eventually you can overcome everything  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any other life lessons?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX 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? A: We don't know  Q: What happened to Chiron after this? A: Given that Chiron is only sent to juvie it's extremely unlikely that Terrel was killed  Q: what happened to Terrell after the incident as this isn't covered? A: We don't know  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the end of Moonlight or in general?
[EX A]:
Yes