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: Oh, it's quite simple really. It's alphabetical. Chinese word for car is 汽車 which is anglicized as Qìchē and read as Quizhe, thus making it after the word Quiz. R goes after letter Q in the alphabet. It is believable that the word Qìchē is the last section in the library's Q section before the R section, while the "Rash" section is possibly the first section in the library's R section. It might be the small or "weird" library, having many books on odd subjects. That is if you ignore other words starting with R which would come before the word rash, such as race (verb) racial (adjective) radiation radical (adjective) radio (noun) rage rail (noun) railroad (noun) rain rain forest raise (verb) range (noun) rank (noun) rapid (adjective) rare (adjective) rarely It should also be pointed out that almost all those previous words when read start with Re- while the rash is the first one which actually reads like Ra-. So the library might be arranged by phonetic pronunciation of the words and not how they are spelled.  <sep>  Q: How do rashes relate to chinese cars? A: Oh, it's quite simple really. It's alphabetical  Q: How is this alphabetical? A: Chinese word for car is 汽車 which is anglicized as Qìchē and read as Quizhe  Q: Is there any other context to this as the series is full of meaning? A: R goes after letter Q in the alphabet  Q: What else is there to this alphabetical relationship? A: he word Qìchē is the last section in the library's Q section before the R section, while the "Rash" section is possibly the first section in the library's R section  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So the relationship is based on where books are in a library?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: Yes, there is a reason for it. As I remember while watching the movie, Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings. And normal child clothes will show the body wrappings easily because they have thin fabrics compared to the thick fabric dresses that she wears.  <sep>  Q: Is there any particular reason for Esther to wear the dress instead of casual dress? A: there is a reason for it  Q: What do you suppose the reason to be? A: Esther is a woman so she has well developed breasts, which she hides by wearing body wrappings  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How much do her scars bother her?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: This is not really explicitly explained in the film (it's only briefly mentioned), but implicitly: Anton Ego is a famous critic known for scathing reviews and an extremely finicky taste. When Linguini holds a press conference, Ego arrives and announces in front of the reporters that he'll be reviewing Linguini's restaurant - so this review is highly publicized and anticipated. Then, surprisingly, not only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats. So it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder. [Also bear in mind that his experience with Remy was a real eye-opener and changed his beliefs. Since the film doesn't specify when Ego lost his job and reputation, it's possible he continued to write reviews that were significantly mellower (since he now also believed in Chef Gusteau's notion that 'anyone can cook'), and that his fanbase was disappointed and simply stopped reading them.]  <sep>  Q: What was the reason Anton Ego lost his job? A: he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats  Q: I thought he didn't mention rats in his review? A: ot only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France  Q: Why did Anton lose his reputation if he didn't mention anything about rats? A: it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the movie?
[A]:
Yes