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 Input:
CONTEXT: This is a highly opinionated question because people will feel different about what is considered "end of origin story". I argue the whole movie is an origin story. It starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to operate, searching for solutions, the whole "superhero in training montage", climax where he finds out his true purpose and powers and ending in him being what is considered to be The Doctor Strange everybody knows. There is no cut in the movie where you could say: "Okay, NOW origin is over" because (again, highly opinionated), only at the end of the movie is the character fully developed and whole. Anything in between is just a half truth.  <sep>  Q: How much of Doctor Strange is origin story? A: the whole movie is an origin story  Q: Do we see Doctor Strange go to another country? A: t starts in the beginning of him being a surgeon, loosing his ability to  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does it stay in the US?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: That's a regular Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. It's a split key format, for ergonomic purposes (read: prevents carpal tunnel or repetitive stress injuries of the wrist). It's considered one of the best split key keyboards, with nice heavy clicky action (for a membrane based keyboard). It (the whole series really) is consistently ranked as one of the best keyboards. It's an off the shelf product, not a specially designed prop. Source: looking at the one ten feet to my left.  <sep>  Q: What type of keyboard is Caden Cotard using? A: That's a regular Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite. It's a split key format, for ergonomic purposes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what job does his character do in the movie?

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: NOTE: OBSA (One Big Spoiler Alert) His character relied on common sense of all seamen, as he saw it. There are several instances throughout the movie where his character makes statements to his crew as to why he's doing things the way he is, which, while unpopular at the outset, made sense and was bought into after the explanation. He used this same common sense seamanship to bring the conclusion which happened. With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas. He didn't know the Russian ship was going to fire on the base, but was hoping for some kind of resolution which didn't require his boat to fire. While he was given the order to fire from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Donnegan, he knew it would create bigger issues and further hostilities. Having the Russian Captain Andropov onboard and believing in him was a good step towards making this happen. Without Andropov, it probably wouldn't have turned out the same way. He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action. It wasn't that he forced someone else to fire, he only hoped it would happen without his having to do it. In the end, everything worked out for the best (ex machina?).  <sep>  Q: How did Gerard Butler resolve the ending of Hunter Killer? A: With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas  Q: How was Bulter's character able to get the warship to fire the missiles? A: He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the Russians defense fighting back?

Ex Output:

Yes