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: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love? A: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self  Q: I am talking about when the first meet...is that what you are referring to? A: e know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's dau  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are you sure Cal didn't remind Jacob of his father?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: In fact it wasn't Silva who hacked into the MI6 system but Q, when he plugged in the hard drive they obtained from Silva. Silva planned all this in advance. When causing an explosion right inside the MI6 headquarters, he forced them to move to this old bunker (since he knew their security protocols). And he also knew they would try to access the hard drive, so he made the password easy enough to guess. This is also explained in the movie, when Silva escaped and they realize that all of this (including his capture, of course) was planned out perfectly by him.  <sep>  Q: What kind of cage is he isolated in? A: When causing an explosion right inside the MI6 headquarters, he forced them to move to this old bunker (since he knew their security protocols  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the prosthesis hiding?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: The annoying phone ring in the Once Upon a Time in America scene you quoted, is there not for the purpose of annoying the viewer (which I admit id does a bit), but is there to share with the viewer and impress in the audience the feeling experienced by Noodles (De Niro). In order to reach the desidered effect, it has to be long and certainly not pleasant. The phone ring is not real, it's just in Noodles head and expresses the metaphorical ring of his guilty conscience, which is stirred in the opium den by the newspaper's headlines hovering over the photos of Max, Patsy and Cockeye that read "Bootleggers trapped by Feds; Three Slain". Noodles tries once again to obliterate the painful memory of his betrayal triggered by the newspaper by sucking greedily on the opium pipe, bu to no avail. The scene is also beautifully edited in reverse, thus the audience does really understand the meaning of the ringing phone only at the end of the sequence, when we see Noodles picking up the phone and calling the desk of Sergeant Halloran (we are only shown the nametag on his desk). When Halloran (or one of his agents) picks up, the ringing stops and is replaced by a deafening, high-pitched noise that forces Noodles to stand up, no matter the amount of opium smoked. Here's the phone ring scene from Youtube:  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of annoying phone ring?
Example Output:
Yes