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]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain. We see hundreds of kids in the compound in the scorch trials. Killing a few kids isn't a problem. Not that we know they died. The kids the Grievers kill are never shown dying on screen. They could just as easily be non mortally wounded and captured. Since it happens off scene we can't tell.  <sep>  Q: Why would WCKD use Grievers? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  Q: How many kids are there and how many did they kill? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did they not pick something other than the kids?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The Yellow clothes are a type of 'Elder Endorsement', a ratification or 'pass'. The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder, so it is a sanctioned activity. If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there. It's unlikely the 'beasts' would harm her, but they'd certainly interfere and try and scare her off/back to the village. Ivy possibly doesn't know what they're capable of. Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing, but within the narrative of the film her maintaining her cloak's yellow lustre removes that possibility.  <sep>  Q: Why was Ivy concerned with wiping the mud off of her yellow cloak? A: The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder  Q: And does that protect them in some way? A: If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there  Q: But, I thought Ivy knew the creatures weren't real? A: Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did her dad tell her the truth only because she was blind?
[A]:
No