instruction:
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:`.
question:
CONTEXT: By this point in the narrative, Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire. The affair with the bullets missing him in Marvin's apartment had convinced him that God had a higher purpose for him, and by allowing Ringo to take what he needed, Jules was ensuring that he wouldn't have to kill him for attempting to rob him. This was the first step towards Jules' new life. He was not only buying/saving Ringo's life, but also his own.  <sep>  Q: What should I know about the scene? A: Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he want to change his life?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning. He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing. This had two implications, first is that he wasn't like Nicky and the second, he had far too much press after he survived the bombing as he was the center of attention with the gaming board. They really couldn't kill him without proving they (the bosses) were involved.  <sep>  Q: Why was Sam "Ace" Rothstein spared by the bosses? A: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film? A: Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are these actors own accents that they bring to the film or is it intentional?
answer:

Yes