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:`.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: My guess is that Vinay did not know Anjali before their meeting at the jewelry shop. I infer this from analyzing the character of Vinay. He doesn't appear like someone who will use crooked methods. Also, regarding the sog sequence, I think it was a mere coincidence, intentionally plotted by the director to create mystery.  <sep>  Q: Does Vinay know Anjali before meeting her at the jewelry shop? A: My guess is that Vinay did not know Anjali before their meeting at the jewelry shop  Q: Why do you think that he did not know her? A: I infer this from analyzing the character of Vinay  Q: Do yuo think that he was not brazen enough to sek employment knowing the owners daughter was who he was interested in? A: He doesn't appear like someone who will use crooked methods  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it possible that he knew her but played like he did not?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I think it was worded that way for pragmatic reasons. Peter Jackson didn't want to tell the story of Sméagol until after the character Gollum was established. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the viewer is intended to see Gollum as a sort of beast. In The Two Towers, he has a much larger role and seems sort of halfway between beast and person, but a viewer who has not read the books is still unlikely to guess that he is a corrupted hobbit. The Return of the King opens with the story of Sméagol and Déagol to shed new light on who Gollum is, where he came from, why the Ring means so much to him, and what kind of influence the Ring wields over him. It is a bit of a shocking scene; the shock would not be nearly as strong if the viewer already knew Gollum's origin. So, in the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring, that Gollum was once a hobbit named Sméagol is an extraneous detail. While "the Ring came to Gollum" is an oversimplification, it was a necessary one; it told the viewer what he needed to know at that point in the story and no more.  <sep>  Q: Why does the narrator say 'The ring came to the creature Gollum'?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness. Interestingly, Elgar ended up writing 14 variations (Nimrod being number 9). Zimmer is trying to instil the patriotism that the variations have done for the British over the past century. Calling his own composition Variation 15 implies a continuation of Elgar's original works.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of Nimrod to Dunkirk's original score? A: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness  Q: What do you mean by part of British conciousness? A: Zimmer is trying to instil the patriotism that the variations have done for the British over the past century  Q: Oh I see, isn't is unusually long for a soundtrack? A: Interestingly, Elgar ended up writing 14 variations (Nimrod being number 9  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: That is very interesting...do you know why he'd do so many variations?

Ex Output:

No