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: It's a comedy. The cakes were blatantly shaped as escape tools, but due to the guards respect of M. Gustave and the high quality of'Mendel's' cakes he so often received, the guards stupidly decide not to cut into them so as not to spoil the presentation, despite the fact that they clearly contain contraband.  <sep>  Q: Why does the guard not check the pastries?

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his “Final Cut” is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games – while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus – that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art – like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks – as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.)  <sep>  Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it common to do a director's cut?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams. While it may be part of the con at that point it sounds real. He tells about his brother's dream to do the perfect con, about making the made-up story true, and how he thinks Stephen might have even liked it to have died at midnight on a beach during a trip to Jakarta as that would be something "real". Bloom then tells Penelope that it is a trap to try to make your own story true. Dying for his brother, to complete the story, does fit into this pattern. Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name; he is the main person of the movie. Stephen is the creator of a story for his brother; his job is done at the end of the movie. Of course that is an explanation that only works in movies; in reality stories and lives rarely have fixed and clear starts and ends. The death of a character in a movie is a clear symbol that his part is completed. The character in this movie served a single purpose, to care for the happiness of his brother; by making the story real he spares the couple to start their relationship on a lie.  <sep>  Q: Did Stephen really get what he wanted? A: Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did bloom want to say with her quote?


Output: Yes