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 Q]: CONTEXT: It is a common fact on TV that combat and injuries are stylized to make it look good rather than realistic. Have a look at pretty much any film fight where someone knows a martial art and compare that to someone who knows a martial art fighting for real. They are worlds apart. Even if you look at American Wrestling and BJJ you can see the difference. Knocking someone out with one punch is extremely difficult, especially if they are used to combat. I have taken an unpulled hit from a quarter staff on the top of my head which caused me to blackout later but I still didn't go down at the time. After almost 20 years of martial arts and living in rough areas I have only been knocked unconscious with one punch once, when I was 17 by the European Kickboxing champion. I was punched to the ground by a bouncer in Portsmouth when I was 20 but was still conscious until he stamped on my head. Most of the people in the Walking Dead would have starved or succumb to injuries by now if they were suffering this scenario for real. Not to mention being struck down by illness. It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead.  <sep>  Q: Are there a lot of head injuries in the Walking Dead? A: It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead  Q: What show is this from? A: the Walking Dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is it about?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: 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?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: 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  Q: Is it possible that he knew her but played like he did not? A: I think it was a mere coincidence, intentionally plotted by the director to create mystery  Q: Or was it a mere coincidence that Dav happened to be on the same road as Tanuja? A: egarding the sog sequence, I think it was a mere coincidence  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he walk in front of the car?
[EX A]:
No