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:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish.  <sep>  Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: 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?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution  Q: Why did she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who actually made this movie?
[A]:
No