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:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either.  <sep>  Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: 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?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: Basically, yes. But not as a Targaryen. As a rewards for his services. It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance. Enemies are stripped from title, land and castles (if let alive at all), while allies and important persons (Sir Bronn of the Blackwater for example) are given titles, land and castle that are currently available, either because the family died in war (Tarly house for example, in fact the all reach is mentioned in the show to be available, and of course, Harrenhal the hot potato), or because it was stripped from enemies. So he can get any Castle he wants as long as he asks nicely.  <sep>  Q: Is Jon the ruler of Dragonstone?
Example Output:
Yes