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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: 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: we will never know as neither boat used their detonator  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the detonators for their own boat of the other boat?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: 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: What about fans of the book though?


Output: No