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: He's merely being insulting about Xandarian society. Xandar seems to be an advanced, wealthy, industrial civilization, with a strong rule of law. From Rocket's point of view, as an outsider on the edges of the law, Xandarians seem to be busy and hard working, but he thinks their life is boring and meaningless. We also know that Rocket feels like an outsider and falls back on put-downs and sarcasm when talking to friends and foes alike - so him being insulting to Xandarians isn't surprising.  <sep>  Q: Why are Xandarians in a hurry to get to nothing at all? A: Xandarians seem to be busy and hard working  Q: What else can you tell me about the Xandarians? A: Xandar seems to be an advanced, wealthy, industrial civilization, with a strong rule of law  Q: Rocket doesn't seem to like them, why is this? A: he thinks their life is boring and meaningless  Q: Why does he think this? A: Rocket feels like an outsider  Q: What else can you tell me about the plot? A: Rocket feels like an outsider and falls back on put-downs and sarcasm when talking to friends and foes alike - so him being insulting to Xandarians isn't surprising  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have anything else to tell me that I might find interesting?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: David was of great historical interest to the future A.I.s, since he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time. Beyond that, he was actually built by humans, where they are undoubtedly built by other A.I.s. Studying him would help them understand their own past. They wanted to preserve him, and although they are not organic, seem to have a morality which prevents them from simply taking him apart or locking him in a cage.  <sep>  Q: Why was David's happiness so important to the Mecha descendants? A: he had actual memories of human beings, who are apparently long extinct by their time  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How many years has the Mecha been encased?

Ex Output:

No