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:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Beatrix deserve to die?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted, it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques. What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input. The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good. In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich, he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen.  <sep>  Q: Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted? A: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted  Q: Why is their pushback that it was done? A: it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is that a problem if it got done?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: For a perfect clone, down to the quantum level, both would be the real Angier. That is the essence of his fear. The real Angier will be killed every time. When you download a movie what you are doing is actually making a perfect copy of the movie. Which is the real movie? They all are. This is very different from making copies of film reels where only the original have the quality of the original (each copy adds a little imperfection). Now, the question The Prestige asks is what if you can make a perfect clone of a person the way you can perfectly copy digital data? In one sense, if we don't want to get too uncomfortable we can always say the remaining copy is now the real data and the deleted copy is not real anymore. But if you really think about it and get out of your comfort zone you will realize that both people are real and what you have done is murdered yourself. In The Prestige this point is much more clearly made as the old copied Angier becomes the one who is killed. Not the newly created clone. Every time the clone will have only the memory of the surviving Angier. But every time Angier experiences death, only the Angier that experienced death has no way of passing that memory to the surviving Angier so the survivor can never know what dying feels like.  <sep>  Q: How does it work that the clones are sentient paradox?
[A]:
Yes