TASK DEFINITION: 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:`.
PROBLEM: CONTEXT: He starts walking as soon as he pushes her, and he's halfway up the stairs by the time bystanders notice she's under the train. He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him. As for security systems, if you watch more of the series, you'll notice that Frank is always aware of when he is being recorded. I don't believe his action was spur of the moment. He chose to meet her there and do the deed because he had an way out where any recording of him wouldn't be enough to identify him, especially with the hat and glasses. Would that be possible in the real world? Could there actually be a blind spot all the way out of the station? Unclear. Her death was likely ruled an accident because metro police departments are overworked, and there isn't any immediate evidence to the contrary. The fact that they wouldn't find the angle and direction of her fall suspicious bother me too, I don't have an answer for that.  <sep>  Q: How could Frank escape the crime scene without any witnesses? A: He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him  Q: Was the subway station empty? A: bystanders  Q: We're they in a 'blind spot'? A: Unclear  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there important details after the first episode?

SOLUTION: No

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it  Q: How does that explain the scene with the coin? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk  Q: Did he use the coin to get the prints? A: Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh right I see, what about the scene in general, can you explain more?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I have Walter Mitty on vudu, and it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending. Interestingly, I can think of a movie that has the exact ending you mentioned, starring Brendan Fraser, called Bedazzled. In it, the protagonist is in love with a woman from work, he is granted several wishes by Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil and all of them are based around this woman but go disastrously wrong, and in the end asks out his co-worker who politely declines as she is in a relationship. The movie ends with him meeting a new neighbor that he begins dating.  <sep>  Q: Does "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" have two endings? A: it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the real ending?

SOLUTION:
Yes