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 would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment?

A: Yes
****
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: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany" A: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can  Q: Did she recognize Murphy as a DEA agent? A: After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you feel the scene is necessary?

A:
Yes
****