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: I don't have a source but I am fairly certain, Daenerys didn't know about Jon visiting Tyrion in the cell because of the later scene with her and Jon and her reaction to Jon asking mercy for Tyrion. Then the question comes, why did Unsullied let Jon through. We saw in S08E05 that Tyrion managed to see Jaime after convincing the guarding Unsullied that he has a higher authority then the person they possibly got their orders from. They have seen Jon by her side when she's standing on King's Landing steps and proclaiming her victory and further conquest. So they know he is a close ally to her. They must have gotten their orders from Grey Worm or some other officers to guard the prisoner but when they see Jon, a close ally of Dany and a Commander of the Northern forces, they let him through because they know he has a higher authority and possibly Queen's confidence in the visit  <sep>  Q: Did the queen allow Jon to visit Tyrion?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong?

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy!  <sep>  Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil?

Ex Output:

Yes