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: My theory is yes, it is so easy to become vice president of Dunder Mifflin. That's most likely why they were bought out by Sabre, its because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't care, most likely because its a paper company, and who cares about paper!?  <sep>  Q: Was it that easy to become a vice President at Dunder Mifflin? A: My theory is yes  Q: What is that theory based on? A: ts because all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing and didn't car  Q: How can Ryan from The Office take over a senior position without any experience? A: because its a paper company, and who cares about paper  Q: What else can you tell me about The Office? A: all of the guys in the New York branch were all idiots and had no clue what they were doing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What other branches are there?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was his first director's cut?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him. The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack. Therefore Nina basically has to get Alexis free for the Drazen to make the final assasination attempt  <sep>  Q: Why does Nina Myers call Palmer in episode 22 to help save Jack from the Drazens? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, I'm confused about one thing...why did Nina help Jack if she was a mole?
Example Output:
Yes