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:`.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: You can safely watch Season 5 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. without worrying about spoiling the end of Infinity War. There are no spoilers made, and only some very vague references to the beginning of Infinity War, and none to the movie's climax. The references are slim and not relevant to the plot of the show, and are a lot less tied into the show than the Winter Soldier reveals to Season 1 (where they were essential to understanding the plot) or even the vague references to Thor 2 earlier in that season, where the agents come to play clean-up after the events of the movie. Go forth and watch safely.  <sep>  Q: Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D Season 5 - does it spoil Avengers: Infinity War?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent.  <sep>  Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier  Q: Was he already an established hunter? A: he was an experienced hunter  Q: Was he just hunting for more trophies? A: wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see. So he would only attack armed humans. Got it
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  Q: What else could the baby of been ? A: All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What parts on the baby moved?
[EX A]:
No