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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line.  <sep>  Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened at the end of the game?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: How Bruce Banner found the Avengers: When Banner was aboard the Hellicarrier, his gamma ray search algorithm had worked out where the Tesseract was (Stark Tower), but before he could tell anyone Loki's machinations kicked in and he turned into the Hulk. After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled. How Thor found the Avengers: This one's a bit more problematic. Thor seems to have the ability to track down Loki. Witness how Thor knew Loki was held inside the jet after he was captured by S.H.I.E.L.D.. How he does that isn't known. So I'm assuming that, however he does it, Thor simply tracked down Loki to Stark Tower.  <sep>  Q: How did Thor and Banner know where to go? A: After he went back to being Bruce Banner, he just found his way to Stark Tower, where the rest of the Avengers had assembled  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How do Banner and Thor know that they need to go to the tower?


Output: Yes