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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Louise has a unique understanding of the language. Many of the scientists have worked out some of the vocabulary and seem to have made some progress in communication. But Louise has immersed herself more in the language than the others. But the implications are not apparent until very late. In a final splurge of communication, done as the scientists start to panic about the reaction of the other nations to the partial communications they have interpreted, the aliens send a very rich message: not one word but a whole screenful of words. Nobody can make sense of it until Louise has a moment of insight and can read it all and get the point of it. Only at this moment does the full intent of the language have an effect on her: and when it does it rewrites her sense of time. She then uses this knowledge of the future to avert a potential catastrophe. We only see the implications of this in the postscript (which may be actually her memory of the future) where many of the players meet for the first time at a celebration of her book on the language and one of them triggers her memory of what she did to talk down the hostility. The key point is that she is the first person to completely grasp the alien language and therefore the first to experience its ability to undo her brain's sense of linear time.  <sep>  Q: Why was Louise the only one who advances her mind? A: The key point is that she is the first person to completely grasp the alien language and therefore the first to experience its ability to undo her brain's sense of linear time  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: was this a good movie?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: By this point in the narrative, Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire. The affair with the bullets missing him in Marvin's apartment had convinced him that God had a higher purpose for him, and by allowing Ringo to take what he needed, Jules was ensuring that he wouldn't have to kill him for attempting to rob him. This was the first step towards Jules' new life. He was not only buying/saving Ringo's life, but also his own.  <sep>  Q: What should I know about the scene?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case? A: The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened?
[EX A]:
Yes