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: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire? A: The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can the lightning tree kill someone if they aren't on it?
No

CONTEXT: It is more likely to have been real imho. Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women. However, he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection. It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again.  <sep>  Q: In Skyfall, was the bar scene a daydream or was it real? A: It is more likely to have been real imho  Q: Why do you say this when it is not really explained in the film? A: Bond is superficially charasmatic and able to make shallow relationships with ease, like his ability to seduce women  Q: What does his charisma have to do with the dream sequence? A: It is the same in the bar, one minute he is able to impress everyone and become the centre of attention but none of them are actually his friends and he quickly ends up alone again  Q: So do you think his lack of charisma suggests this is a dream? A: he has issues forming deep relationships with anyone. His relationships with women usually end quickly with little emotional connection  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other suggestions as to why this is definitely real?
No

CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  Q: What was the cataclysmic event? A: the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh I see, were they able be safe in Odin's Vault?

Yes