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: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex?

SOLUTION: Yes

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: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movies does this occur in?

SOLUTION:
No