TASK DEFINITION: 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:`.
PROBLEM: CONTEXT: Recall how Marcelle does the final preparations for setting the theater on fire - he blocks the auditorium doors with a crowbar and then proceeds to behind the screen and starts waiting for Shoshanna's "message" to appear on the screen. Before he does so the two men from the Basterds leave the auditorium and proceed to some side corridors to get to the side balcony and attack Hitler. Some time after they leave the auditorium Marcelle comes to the doors and blocks them. The balcony where Hitler sits with Himmler has a separate door guarded by two German soldiers. The two Basterds kill the guards, rush into the balcony and shoot Hitler. Right after that the "message" appears and Marcelle sets the pile of films behind the screen on fire. So the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued. He definitely has much better chances than those people who are in the auditorium - those are blocked between the locked doors and bursting flames - but he is at least not in the auditorium and so less exposed to the dangers and has a chance to use the side corridors to escape. The two Basterds shooting him on the balcony make that totally impossible.  <sep>  Q: Would Hitler have died in the fire anyway if the Basterds hadn't shot him? A: the balcony doors are not blocked - Hitler likely can escape the theater or at least gain some time and space and have better chances to have been resqued  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did the basterds do?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a plot device?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: The biggest reason is that they weren't prepared for an attack. The Lannister army wasn't supposed to be there, but rather defending King's Landing and Casterly Rock. Lady Tyrell even goes on to say that fighting was never really the Tyrell's strong suit, so in-universe it wasn't a surprise that they fell so quickly. Also, wealth doesn't equate to army size. Just because the Tyrell's have a lot of money doesn't mean that they have a huge army. In fact, house Lannister is in significant debt because of it's huge army and all of the fighting they've had to do over the last few years.  <sep>  Q: How was a powerful house so easily defeated?

SOLUTION:
Yes