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: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain. We see hundreds of kids in the compound in the scorch trials. Killing a few kids isn't a problem. Not that we know they died. The kids the Grievers kill are never shown dying on screen. They could just as easily be non mortally wounded and captured. Since it happens off scene we can't tell.  <sep>  Q: Why would WCKD use Grievers? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  Q: How many kids are there and how many did they kill? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did they not pick something other than the kids?
Yes

CONTEXT: This irks me too, but I'm certain it's done to convey to the audience that the character is actually drinking. It's one of those tropes that people have become accustomed to, even though it isn't realistic. It's similar to the trope of "every time you turn on a microphone, it whines with feedback for a second, then settles down." Not realistic, but it clearly shows the audience what's going on.  <sep>  Q: Why does TV shows always make a full drink sound like an almost empty one? A: done to convey to the audience that the character is actually drinking  Q: Is it a good technique? A: This irks me  Q: Is it realistic? A: it isn't realistic  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do, they use this technique?
Yes

CONTEXT: My personal interpretation: I don't know how Siamese twins are like to each other in the real world but in the movie the relationship between the two lead characters are shown very strange yet interesting. After watching the movie, two things were stuck in my head about these two characters, Théo (Louis Garrel) and Isabelle (Eva Green). 1 - They both share common interest, that's passion for movies. Through out the movie you see snippets of french classic movies (that's what I think they are.) and they role-play them and they lay bets on those movies. 2 - At any cost, they don't leave each other. The movie made me say this line because, from beginning, they sleep nude next to each other, they bath together and even sexuality (the intercourse between Isabelle and Matthew in the kitchen.) they took liberally. So, I'm not surprised that Isabelle did not choose to leave with Matthew. Simply, Isabelle won't either leave her twin brother or the love for movies.  <sep>  Q: Why Isabelle and Theo leave Matthew in the end?

Yes