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:`.

CONTEXT: "when Rent reads Diane's letter"... So Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith and within the core group of 'best friends' these details are bound to get about, especially when you, perhaps, have a criminal psycho on the run demanding the London address from any one of these characters. Also, the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there (in the film this is primarily shown through his relationship with the hotel owner in the climax).  <sep>  Q: How did Begbie come to know where Rent was living? A: Diane had Rent's address, and Spud knew Diane was in touch with him when he speaks to her while mashed up on the kerb... everybody seems to know everybody in Leith  Q: DO they all stay in one place? A: the film implies (and the book states specifically) that these guys spend a lot of time in London and that Sick Boy already has many 'contacts' down there  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many contacts exactly?
No

CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash.  <sep>  Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a plot hole?
No

CONTEXT: Bran is believed to be dead. When Robb marches to war, Theon Greyjoy betrays the Starks and takes Winterfell. Bran and Rickon escape. Theon eventually has two boys slain at a farm and says that they were Bran and Rickon. As far as the greater world knows, all the Stark men are dead, which leaves Sansa (the oldest girl) as the heir to Winterfell. Whoever marries her will become Lord of that region.  <sep>  Q: Why is Sansa Stark so important? A: As far as the greater world knows, all the Stark men are dead, which leaves Sansa (the oldest girl) as the heir to Winterfell  Q: What does she do after all the Stark men die? A: Whoever marries her will become Lord of that region  Q: What is the significance of Bran at this point, is he still alive? A: Bran is believed to be dead  Q: What else can you tell me about Sansa? A: the heir to Winterfell  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the name of her younger sister?

Yes