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: It's unlikely they made any money from the sales of "Man of Constant Sorrow" that happened during the movie. When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work. Most likely they were signing the rights to the recording over to the station owner in exchange for a quick payment. The "band" themselves had no idea they were popular until they sang at Stoke's fund raiser, as evidence by the claim that "no one will believe we're a real band", and the shock at the crowd's reaction to their song. We don't have any idea what happened to them after the end of the movie, but it would be reasonable to expect they eventually got signed to a record contract. The governor would probably have wanted them to keep recording music, if nothing else, so he could continue to ride their popularity. That contract would have covered any future recordings; it's also possible they could negotiate royalties for future sales of their hit song, and the station owner would cave in to keep them happy. But that's just speculation, since the last we know of the boys they're going to go work for the governor.  <sep>  Q: Who is the radio owner? A: Stoke  Q: Did the actual band ever get a contract signed? A: When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the name of the song?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book. And re-telling a book story in movie form, when you've got to get all the key details on screen in just 2 or 3 hours, means you have to omit many minor details. The core story of The Great Gatsby is about Gatsby and the world he lived in, not about Nick or Nick's potential attraction to Gatsby. In book form, there is plenty of room for the subplot suggestion that Nick is gay -- and the author Fitzgerald introduced the suggestion so subtly that most readers miss it. In the movie, however, throwing "Nick might be gay" at viewers along with everything else, in just 2 or 3 hours, could overwhelm them and/or distract from the core story -- and I'm not sure how it could be done as subtly on-screen as Fitzgerald pulled it off in the prose.  <sep>  Q: Why did the Great Gasby (2013) movie erase the hints of Nick Carraway's homosexuality? A: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would the writer include this subplot in the book?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: As far as I know, the Thinker himself proclaimed the fact that he has answers to almost anything, and he knows all the possible future outcomes of any event. Being a super intelligent meta human, it wouldn't be outrageous to think he calculated how and what powers each of the bus metas were going to get.  <sep>  Q: Does the Thinker know about the power of metas he created? A: As far as I know, the Thinker himself proclaimed the fact that he has answers to almost anything  Q: Okay, but when he created 12 different metas did he know the powers of each one? A: he knows all the possible future outcomes of any event  Q: Did he create each metas according to his needs? A: Being a super intelligent meta human, it wouldn't be outrageous to think he calculated how and what powers each of the bus metas were going to get  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Anything else you can tell me about Thinker?
[EX A]:
Yes