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: Recall how Marcelle does the final preparations for setting the theater on fire - he blocks the auditorium doors with a crowbar and then proceeds to behind the screen and starts waiting for Shoshanna's "message" to appear on the screen. Before he does so the two men from the Basterds leave the auditorium and proceed to some side corridors to get to the side balcony and attack Hitler. Some time after they leave the auditorium Marcelle comes to the doors and blocks them. The balcony where Hitler sits with Himmler has a separate door guarded by two German soldiers. The two Basterds kill the guards, rush into the balcony and shoot Hitler. Right after that the "message" appears and Marcelle sets the pile of films behind the screen on fire. So the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued. He definitely has much better chances than those people who are in the auditorium - those are blocked between the locked doors and bursting flames - but he is at least not in the auditorium and so less exposed to the dangers and has a chance to use the side corridors to escape. The two Basterds shooting him on the balcony make that totally impossible.  <sep>  Q: Would Hitler have died in the fire anyway if the Basterds hadn't shot him? A: the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did the basterds do?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: 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?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead? A: they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller  Q: Have they saved lots of people from dying? A: One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: They saved him from falling down an elevator shaft, is this typical in other episodes?
[EX A]:
Yes