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: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead).  <sep>  Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you feel he was tentative?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease.  <sep>  Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think the full phrase is?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence  Q: What did Charlie take one of? A: If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these  Q: Why did Charlie kill four people? A: The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see, Why did charlie want to frame Barr?
[A]:
No