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:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement.  <sep>  Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.  <sep>  Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds? A: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system  Q: Which is the more significant? A: First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this an aspect of the US justice system I don't know?

Answer: No


Question: CONTEXT: You think that a large deployment of troops would somehow be immune from the black market abundance of illicit material? Even in real life, drugs, alcohol, and illicit materials are abundant in field ops. It would not be unheard of or even unexpected for soldiers to have access to alcohol. Most of the soldiers at the base would be there voluntarily, and would not be patted down or strip searched. Put it this way, J Squads direct drill Sargent was against poker or card games and J Squad had a poker game going. Alcohol is just as easy to bring. That said, Cage had plenty of opportunities to find illicit stashes of alcohol or drugs, both on base and off. From his various loops, he obviously didn't sleep that night between waking up at the DS kicks and the moving out, and he could have found alcohol on base or off. He would have been back before deployment if he wanted. It was N+x day, where N is the number of interactions we have seen and X is the number we haven't. Cage has seen many iterations not shown in the film.  <sep>  Q: Where could Cage get alcohol on base? A: Even in real life, drugs, alcohol, and illicit materials are abundant in field ops. It would not be unheard of or even unexpected for soldiers to have access to alcohol  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where could he have gotten it?

Answer:
Yes