instruction:
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: I think he was talking about his dead wife: Parry is saying he remembers everything about what happened and forgives Jack, so Jack can find peace, that's why he was crying (Jack is the wounded, tormented Fisher King and Parry the simple-minded man that helps him, in my interpretation of the movie).  <sep>  Q: Which girl Parry was referring to after waking up? A: I think he was talking about his dead wife  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who was Parry woken up by?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case? A: The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata  Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened? A: Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long does that usually take?
answer:
No


question:
CONTEXT: There were many contradictions in Prot's character -- on one hand, he had an astonishing knowledge of astronomy (some of the things he'd discovered were absolutely new to some famous astronomers); on the other hand, he was hospitalized in a mental institute due to the fact that he had many mental issues. The staff obviously concluded that they were dealing with a mentally insane genius. He was maybe quite a unique and non-standard patient, but regardless - he was a patient in a mental hospital. Some people took this pretty seriously, and investigated his story, but you must remember that the entire situation ended pretty quickly -- throughout the entire film, they had very little time. Prot had a "deadline" -- if it was a countdown to a return to his home-planet or to a complete mental breakdown, either way it was a real deadline.  <sep>  Q: What can you tell me about the K-Pax Alien? A: he was hospitalized in a mental institute due to the fact that he had many mental issues  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened with the mental institute?
answer:

Yes