instruction:
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: The car which they take off in at the end of the movie is the fantasy version of the car the Thunderbirds sing about during Greased Lightning and not the white car which gets torn up during the race. The Greased Lightning car, being a fantasy car, is a way of saying at the end of the movie that Danny and Sandy's dreams have come true: they will live happily ever after, or so they want the audience to believe. They ride off into the sunset together and everyone is happy for them. None of the other characters see anything wrong with it because it is a fantasy world in Danny, Sandy, and the audience's eyes, the rest of them are just seeing it as it is. At least that is my take on it.  <sep>  Q: What is the symbolism of the flying cars? A: car which they take off in at the end  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movie is the car from?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was this in a different movie?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates. This shot leaves an entry wound and shrapnel. The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side. If Bond did have a bullet proof vest on, this area is likely to be covered. The impact from the bullet is transferred through the kevlar plate/s onto a larger area of Bonds body. Rather than penetrating his ribcage, and leaving an entry wound, the vest stops the bullet. Stopping the bullet before it enters his body imparts a lot more force onto Bond, which explains him being thrown off the train. It also explains the 4 broken ribs and minor organ damage. Bullet wounds are typically puncture wounds, deep and localised. Without a vest, Bond would have suffered much more serious organ damage as the bullet tears through him. Bullet proof vests typically leave blunt trauma injuries, affecting larger areas, and are not likely to leave scarring. One direct bullet wound is not likely to break 3 ribs, however the impact through a kevlar plate definitely is.  <sep>  Q: in Skyfall opening scene on train, does Bond fake getting shot? A: I am surprised no one has suggested a bullet proof vest as the explanation. The first shot, hitting Bond in the shoulder, is above the location of any kevlar plates  Q: Where was he injured? A: The second shot, that knocks Bond off the train, makes impact around his ribs on his right side  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did he have internal injuries from the bullet?
answer:

Yes