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: David was of great historical interest to the future A.I.s, since he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time. Beyond that, he was actually built by humans, where they are undoubtedly built by other A.I.s. Studying him would help them understand their own past. They wanted to preserve him, and although they are not organic, seem to have a morality which prevents them from simply taking him apart or locking him in a cage.  <sep>  Q: Why was David's happiness so important to the Mecha descendants? A: he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movie was this event in?

Answer: No


Question: CONTEXT: The Yellow clothes are a type of 'Elder Endorsement', a ratification or 'pass'. The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder, so it is a sanctioned activity. If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there. It's unlikely the 'beasts' would harm her, but they'd certainly interfere and try and scare her off/back to the village. Ivy possibly doesn't know what they're capable of. Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing, but within the narrative of the film her maintaining her cloak's yellow lustre removes that possibility.  <sep>  Q: Why was Ivy concerned with wiping the mud off of her yellow cloak?

Answer: Yes


Question: CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  Q: Are they all the same type of producer? A: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers  Q: They are making tons of money...do they need that many financial backers? A: people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they do anything other than give money?

Answer:
Yes