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: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her.  <sep>  Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding  Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her  Q: Did she understand the security guard? A: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How was her ability to understand English erased?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development. The Harry Potter series is a pretty straight forward tale of good vs evil, and does not deviate much from that. A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying. Or that it was all a dream of Harry, who's still living under the crawlspace.  <sep>  Q: Is a twist ending that occurs at the end of a series of films still called a twist ending?

A:
Yes
****