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:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions A: to by D  Q: Why is Neo connected to all the machines in the Matrix? A: he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Neo want to destroy Smith?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think the full phrase is?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive.  <sep>  Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption  Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die? A: The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh, I see, so what do we know about John?

Answer:
Yes