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:`.

CONTEXT: I accept and agree with the answer that was given on SFF (“Sansa was smart enough to wait for everyone to say aye, so they can't go back on their word”). However in my opinion there could also be the fact that, the north has always had its own sort of “culture” and independence, there is a certain respect between northern houses. So it's easier for the other kingdoms to accept them as independent, since they've always, culturally, been seen as seperate from the other six kingdoms. On top of this, the north is the size of the other six kingdoms combined, so having them ruled independently makes much more sense, than in the other kingdoms cases.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the other kingdoms want to be independent? A: he north is the size of the other six kingdoms combined, so having them ruled independently makes much more sense, than in the other kingdoms cases  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: why didn't the Iron Islands want to be independent?
No

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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Beatrix deserve to die?
No

CONTEXT: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence. The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge; Derek and Danny lose their father and hate consumes them. They win a basketball game against the black gang (and their turf in the process) and the gang try and steal their fathers' truck as revenge, Derek kills them over it. But then Derek's arrest interrupts this pattern, he goes off to prison and with the help of Dr. Sweeney he realises the pattern of behaviour and does what he can to prevent it from going any further. Derek has his catharsis and becomes a different person, and tries to help Danny do the same. But the problem is the same hasn't happened to those that he's wronged; there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it, and in the end Danny pays the price. It is much more poignant and reflective of real life in this way, after years of fighting it's not so simple to drop everything and get the happy ending Hollywood has taught us is waiting.  <sep>  Q: Why did American History X end so unexpectedly? A: The message of American History X is quite simple: violence begets violence  Q: But why did the movie end in such an unexpected way? A: there are still people out there from the black gang who have lost friends and blame them both for it  Q: What was the central theme of the movie? A: The whole film is a series of escalations based on revenge  Q: Does the movie portray revenge as a justified action? A: Derek's arrest interrupts this pattern, he goes off to prison and with the help of Dr. Sweeney he realises  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does he realize?

Yes