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:`.
--------
Question: CONTEXT: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give: Caleb knew (or suspected) that Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava. If Caleb hadn't tried to get Nathan drunk that morning, Nathan would have known that Caleb ALREADY completed his plan, and he would have undone the computer code that Caleb altered.  <sep>  Q: Was Nathan listening in on his conversations with Ava? A: Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What were the conversations about?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie. We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him...let's assume they do... I don't remember where I heard this but there's a scene that's not in the movie. The second side of the head piece contains more info than just the 'correct' staff length. Also written on the back side are instructions not to look into the Ark...this is how Indy knows to 'KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT' when the Ark is opened. Indy learns this when he and Sallah have the head piece translated...don't know why this was left out of the movie...bad dates, maybe. Anyway, without Indy, either a) they never find the ark because they don't get the head piece without him, or b) they obtain the ark with the complete head piece but aren't killed by it because they have the instructions not to look at it. Sorry, Amy.  <sep>  Q: Is Amy right about Indiana Jones being irrelevant to the outcome? A: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why isn't Amy right though? Even Sheldon accepts that she is

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: Off base, military police have the authority to arrest only soldiers. On a military reservation or base, military police have jurisdiction and can arrest anyone, including civilians. Movies like Presidio or Jack Reacher that show the MPs arresting civilians outside of a military reservation are not realistic. In such situations it is the policy of the military police to coordinate with civilian police to make such arrests.  <sep>  Q: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil?

Answer:
Yes