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:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: For US Federal civilian employees, there is no prohibition against having spouses (or immediate family members) working in the same agency or even the same unit. The only prohibition is that one of them cannot be in a supervisory chain of command above the other (conflict of interest/nepotism). I'm fairly certain state agencies would have similar restrictions as well. As in any workplace setting, it depends on the culture of the agency (fictional CBI in this instance) or personalities of those involved/affected on how much coworker dating relationships are on the down-low. It can vary. Normally it's not a big deal unless a supervisor starts dating his/her subordinate or something like that. It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field. So the characters might want keep it on the DL just to avoid it coming up in office politics/rumor mill/etc.  <sep>  Q: Is it forbidden to have a relationship in CBI in reality? A: It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field  Q: Is CBI a real thing in America or was it made up for the Mentalist? A: fictional CBI in this instance  Q: Is there a comparable department in the US in reality? A: US Federal civilian employees  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they allowed to have personal relationships while working together or will they have to quit their jobs like the CBI agents?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning. He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing. This had two implications, first is that he wasn't like Nicky and the second, he had far too much press after he survived the bombing as he was the center of attention with the gaming board. They really couldn't kill him without proving they (the bosses) were involved.  <sep>  Q: Why was Sam "Ace" Rothstein spared by the bosses? A: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning  Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim A: He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The car bombing wasnt authorized and Nikky was the one responsible for that, so why was Sam spared by the bosses?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: 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: A twist ending would be Harry becoming a worse villain than Voldy, or Voldy winning and everybody dying  Q: Are you talking about Harry Potter? A: That is just a simple plot twist, or character development  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is Harry a good guy or bad guy in the story?
Example Output:
Yes