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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations – which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation.  <sep>  Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill  Q: Why is Budd unhappy with Bill? A: because of his animosity towards Bill  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Beatrix get revenge?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach? A: perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him  Q: What did George mean when he asked Kenny if he was out of his mind? A: Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I'm still confused about the invisible part, can you tell me more about that?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck? A: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker  Q: Why did they want to remove the tracker? A: The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why didn't he just remove the tracker himself?


Output: Yes