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:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: Sinestro, was the leader of the Green Lantern Corps at the time and regarded to be one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever. He also had a very big ego and believed that he could accomplish what Parallax had failed to do: control the yellow essence of fear without losing himself to it. He also believed that the green essence of will power was no match for the yellow, and that if he wanted to defeat Parallax he would have to use the same power, which is why he asked for a yellow ring to be constructed. Had Sinestro's plan prevailed, he would've worn the yellow ring into battle with Parallax. The latter wouldn't be able to siphon fear from Sinestro's ring because the yellow ring didn't emit fear, it absorbed it, the same way Parallax does.  <sep>  Q: Why does Sinestro have The Guardians create a ring of fear?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else could the baby of been ?
Example Output:
Yes