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 Q]: CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose.  <sep>  Q: Jesse was mad at Walt and Walt left the gun on the couch, was that intentional? A: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Jesse lear that Brock had been poisoned?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted, it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques. What Freddie's trying to concede here is that he did his best work when Brian, Roger, and John were giving their input. The Munich guys were either unable or unwilling to stand up to Freddie's creativity, and so his work wasn't as good. In short, Freddie found out he is not the perfect musical force he believed he was before he went to Munich, he recognizes that he needs the rest of the band, and he's explaining why he was wrong in abandoning Queen.  <sep>  Q: Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted? A: You're kind of focusing on the wrong end of the sentiment. It's not so much that they did what Freddie wanted  Q: Why is their pushback that it was done? A: it's that they never stood up to him or offered any critiques  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is that a problem if it got done?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment? A: I would therefore classify them as Symbiote  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about them?
[EX A]:
Yes