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: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  Q: What else can you tell me about this? A: If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to  Q: Why wouldn't they go along with it? A: He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge  Q: Ahh. so he lied to them to get them on his side? A: the ultimate way to get credibility  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long was the journey for?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed. The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand, a "fair" fight instead of just killing defenseless prey. (It's been a long time since I've seen the film, so can't remember exactly when/how the Predator stops using weapons).  <sep>  Q: Why did the Predator not kill Arnold immediately as it killed everybody else? A: As shown throughout the film, the Predator has only killed armed opponents. At this point in the film Arnold has put up a great fight against the Predator and is currently unarmed  Q: What happened to the Predator after checking arnold's head? A: The Predator looks him over much like a hunter might take time looking at a prize kill before firing a shot. The Predator disarms himself and then fights Arnold hand-to-hand  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who wins the hand to hand fight?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil? A: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers  Q: I thought MPs were only allowed to operate within military personnel? A: Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok, so this wouldn't happen in real life you are saying then?
[A]:
Yes