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: Dawson was not called to testify as a legal maneuver. Criminal defense lawyers know when to withhold a testimony by the accused, because that would open up the prosecution's questions of his character. Dawson had the illegal fence-line shooting in his recent history where he shot at his counterpart. This was the same shooting Santiago reported, and was using to bargain his release from detail at Guantanamo.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dawson not called to testify?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  Q: Who caught the killer? A: The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer  Q: Can you explain the the ending scene? A: In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why a cliffhanger?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history. The people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past. Their future technology actually does allow them to replace people who were not about to die, but they regard this as a moral problem and it is forbidden. But they can take over those lives if they were about to be eliminated from the timeline, hence the apparent paradox of "saving" McClaren. But they haven't actually saved McClaren at all, they have replaced him with a traveller. Early in the series only people about to die get replaced. Obviously the whole point is to alter the timeline but the travellers are aiming not for minor alterations like saving a single, random life, but for big alterations that radically change the course of history. One of their protocols actually forbids them from saving other lives as well even when they know someone is about to die (but not be replaced). This [minor spoiler alert] becomes a source of some dramatic tension in later episodes.  <sep>  Q: Why does MacLaren die in the first episode of Travelers? A: Travellers is about saving people in the future not in the present by altering the course of history  Q: what does this mean, How can people do this? A: people from the future can only do this safely and without unpredictable side-effects on the timeline if they don't "save" lives in the past  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does this then mean that Mclaren is not dead?


Output: Yes