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:`.

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?
Yes

CONTEXT: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie. We know that the nazis had the wrong length staff because they only had one side of the head piece. Other posters have argued whether or not the nazis obtain the head piece from Marion without him...let's assume they do... I don't remember where I heard this but there's a scene that's not in the movie. The second side of the head piece contains more info than just the 'correct' staff length. Also written on the back side are instructions not to look into the Ark...this is how Indy knows to 'KEEP YOUR EYES SHUT' when the Ark is opened. Indy learns this when he and Sallah have the head piece translated...don't know why this was left out of the movie...bad dates, maybe. Anyway, without Indy, either a) they never find the ark because they don't get the head piece without him, or b) they obtain the ark with the complete head piece but aren't killed by it because they have the instructions not to look at it. Sorry, Amy.  <sep>  Q: Is Amy right about Indiana Jones being irrelevant to the outcome? A: I don't believe Amy is correct, and it relates to a scene that isn't in the movie  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why isn't Amy right though? Even Sheldon accepts that she is
Yes

CONTEXT: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams. While it may be part of the con at that point it sounds real. He tells about his brother's dream to do the perfect con, about making the made-up story true, and how he thinks Stephen might have even liked it to have died at midnight on a beach during a trip to Jakarta as that would be something "real". Bloom then tells Penelope that it is a trap to try to make your own story true. Dying for his brother, to complete the story, does fit into this pattern. Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name; he is the main person of the movie. Stephen is the creator of a story for his brother; his job is done at the end of the movie. Of course that is an explanation that only works in movies; in reality stories and lives rarely have fixed and clear starts and ends. The death of a character in a movie is a clear symbol that his part is completed. The character in this movie served a single purpose, to care for the happiness of his brother; by making the story real he spares the couple to start their relationship on a lie.  <sep>  Q: Did Stephen really get what he wanted? A: Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name  Q: What did bloom want to say with her quote? A: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Stephen really want to die?

Yes