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:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him  Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho? A: a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the sons after being left?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The source material is essentially a recollection of a life lived by an individual on his death bed. We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account. There are other moments in the film where things move around for no apparent reason and the stage itself does not move in accordance with objective reality. That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story. I won't comment on whether it was successful. The closest thing I can think at this moment that has this sort of movement might be in Wes Anderson movies where suddenly the naturalistic feel is broken in favor of a staged play: the Zissou movie and "Moonrise Kingdom" both take similar but more obvious breaks from naturalism.  <sep>  Q: Why is the audience sliding around in this scene from Le Temps retrouvé? A: We are seeing these things through the lens of memory, so it is meant to be an almost first person account  Q: A first person account of what exactly? A: That particular scene is from "Swann In Love" by Proust and it was an attempt at capturing visually some measure of Swann's emotive memory of a musical experience from that story  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this why we see the camera panning around a lot?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: In the books it is yet to be discovered if he is brought back to life for what greater purpose. But one thing is for sure, it isn't just one thing he did, but many. Probably in the books he is the one who kills the Night King, because it was clear from David Benioff's interview that they wanted to subvert expectations, they wanted someone who was not Jon to kill the Night King. So I think in the books he came back to life for also killing the NK. He was brought back to do a lot of things if you start to see it that way, a chain of events that led to a lot of things. Defeated Ramsay, showed the World that the dead are coming, prepared for the Long Night and battle of Winterfell. Successfully defeating NK would not have been possible without him. What the Lord of Light could have wanted? Well, we don't even know what LoL was, didn't know what his intentions were, who were his enemy but one thing we know for sure, all victories inevitably came at a cost. To bring a new World, Jon Snow had to stab his love in the belly. So there we have the Azor Ahai theory jumping in, not totally similar but was a good deal.  <sep>  Q: What was the purpose of bringing back Jon?
[A]:
Yes