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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness. Interestingly, Elgar ended up writing 14 variations (Nimrod being number 9). Zimmer is trying to instil the patriotism that the variations have done for the British over the past century. Calling his own composition Variation 15 implies a continuation of Elgar's original works.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of Nimrod to Dunkirk's original score? A: Elgar's Enigma variations - and Nimrod, in particular - have long been a part of the British consciousness  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you mean by part of British conciousness?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: It's unlikely they made any money from the sales of "Man of Constant Sorrow" that happened during the movie. When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work. Most likely they were signing the rights to the recording over to the station owner in exchange for a quick payment. The "band" themselves had no idea they were popular until they sang at Stoke's fund raiser, as evidence by the claim that "no one will believe we're a real band", and the shock at the crowd's reaction to their song. We don't have any idea what happened to them after the end of the movie, but it would be reasonable to expect they eventually got signed to a record contract. The governor would probably have wanted them to keep recording music, if nothing else, so he could continue to ride their popularity. That contract would have covered any future recordings; it's also possible they could negotiate royalties for future sales of their hit song, and the station owner would cave in to keep them happy. But that's just speculation, since the last we know of the boys they're going to go work for the governor.  <sep>  Q: Who is the radio owner?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.  <sep>  Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds? A: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Which is the more significant?


Output: Yes