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: The comment prior to the conversation with the astronauts´ wives (in the control center) clearly states that Capricorn 1 is just close enough to Earth to allow the fluent conversation. Only at the most distant point of the mission the conversation gaps reach 21 minutes. Thus, there seems to be no blooper nor plothole. (I am much more worried about the Apollo mission technology used for a journey of at least a year. Could three astronauts just sit in the command module most of the time? I guess even the strongest personalities would have gone mad. There might have been a strong extended/additional stage of a modified Saturn rocket for the outward and return journey. If this stage was equipped with extra rooms, stores etc. it would appear more realistic than what we see in the movie.)  <sep>  Q: How is the fluent conversation with spacecraft possible in Capricorn One?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
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  Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened? A: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long does that usually take?

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Spider-Man: Homecoming is following the Captain America: Civil War. I've seen the same trailer - and the clip with Spidey holding Cap's shield seems to be lifted straight from the CA:CW movie during the airport fight. Later in the trailer (or in another trailer), Peter is boasting to his friend about meeting Iron Man and the Avengers, and how he stole Captain America's shield from him.  <sep>  Q: Why did I see Spider-Man with Captain America's shield in his hand? A: he stole Captain America's shield from him  Q: When did he do that? A: during the airport fight  Q: Was this in a different movie? A: Captain America: Civil War  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do I need to watch that movie to understand the new Spiderman movie?

Ex Output:

Yes