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: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton.  <sep>  Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven? A: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven  Q: Why was he thought to be insane, other than the murder? Why not just a killer? A: The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane  Q: Did he ever recover from his insanity? A: he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he innocent all along then?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I thought the film's use of the theme was much more politicized than the book's. In the book, when Kenny says that he and George are invisible, I wasn't quite sure what he meant. In the movie, invisibility has been threaded throughout much more explicitly: in the classroom scene George clearly describes “invisible minorities” to his class. I took this as the filmmaker's attempt to make the historical particularities of George's situation clear. In the book, however, Kenny's comment sort of complicates George's understanding of his own minority position. Throughout the book, George believes his pain is invisible to others because society has refused to acknowledge his relationship. He thinks this is a somewhat unique situation, because of his position as a gay man in a homophobic society. Kenny's comment, however, suggests that invisibility is more inclusive than that. Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out, or because their homosocial behavior isn't understood by society, or because they're powerless to stop the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or, perhaps Kenny knows that George is gay and is trying to have an experience by sharing the evening with him. I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know. One of the fantastic things about this novel for me is the way it explodes the idea that we grow closer to others by understanding them better. Caring, closeness, and love in the novel aren't degraded by failures of understanding.  <sep>  Q: What is the meaning of Kenny's words in this scene? A: I don't know and I don't think we're supposed to know  Q: What makes them invisible? A: Perhaps Kenny means that they're invisible because they're out when no one expects them to be out  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, why did the take their clothes off when they were at the beach?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: This is not really explicitly explained in the film (it's only briefly mentioned), but implicitly: Anton Ego is a famous critic known for scathing reviews and an extremely finicky taste. When Linguini holds a press conference, Ego arrives and announces in front of the reporters that he'll be reviewing Linguini's restaurant - so this review is highly publicized and anticipated. Then, surprisingly, not only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats. So it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder. [Also bear in mind that his experience with Remy was a real eye-opener and changed his beliefs. Since the film doesn't specify when Ego lost his job and reputation, it's possible he continued to write reviews that were significantly mellower (since he now also believed in Chef Gusteau's notion that 'anyone can cook'), and that his fanbase was disappointed and simply stopped reading them.]  <sep>  Q: What was the reason Anton Ego lost his job? A: he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats  Q: I thought he didn't mention rats in his review? A: ot only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Anton lose his reputation if he didn't mention anything about rats?

Ex Output:

Yes