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:`.

CONTEXT: It's not a case of Hank possibly watching Walt, it's more that the launderette was on his radar and known to him as a potential target. If he'd been watching it over any space of time, he'd start to notice who goes there regularly. If that person was someone he knew to have links to drugs, and also was a completely different race from the other employees there, then that's going to set further alarm bells of in Hank's head and confirm his suspicions that something illicit is going on (rightly or wrongly). By having Walt and Jesse come in the back of a laundry truck, it looks like a regular drop off and doesn't raise any flags with anyone.  <sep>  Q: Why do Walter and Jesse no longer come in cars to the laundry A: It's not a case of Hank possibly watching Walt, it's more that the launderette was on his radar and known to him as a potential target  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: At some point Walter and Jesse have to come in laundry trucks leaving their cars away. I understand Hank may watch Walter, but why Jesse?
Yes

CONTEXT: I always looked at it as Rose giving her heart to Jack, symbolically. Also, she knew the value of it and knew that in an extreme moment of poverty she could sell it, but she was now at the end of her life and knew she no longer needed that "chip" to cash in. Also, recall that it was somewhat "stolen", so passing it on to her heirs would come with some risk she probably wasn't willing to impart on them.  <sep>  Q: Why did Rose throw the diamond necklace overboard? A: I always looked at it as Rose giving her heart to Jack, symbolically  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What 0ship was Rose on?
No

CONTEXT: Dawson was not called to testify as a legal maneuver. Criminal defense lawyers know when to withhold a testimony by the accused, because that would open up the prosecution's questions of his character. Dawson had the illegal fence-line shooting in his recent history where he shot at his counterpart. This was the same shooting Santiago reported, and was using to bargain his release from detail at Guantanamo.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dawson not called to testify? A: Dawson was not called to testify as a legal maneuver  Q: He was ordered to operate Code Red. How come he wasn't called? A: Criminal defense lawyers know when to withhold a testimony by the accused, because that would open up the prosecution's questions of his character  Q: What did the accused do exactly? A: Dawson had the illegal fence-line shooting in his recent history where he shot at his counterpart  Q: Who reported the shooting? A: This was the same shooting Santiago reported, and was using to bargain his release from detail at Guantanamo  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was Santiago a bystander or was he involved?

No