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: Though it was never fully explained (and likely left on the cuttingroom floor), I thought the obvious answer is that he was taking out frustration while getting sedated with wine. It was my impression, though not explicitly stated in the movie, that Murray's character was a victim of physical abuse. As such, it would make sense that he would need to vent on some other physical object, namely the tree.  <sep>  Q: Why does Bill Murray's character try to chop down the tree?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book. And re-telling a book story in movie form, when you've got to get all the key details on screen in just 2 or 3 hours, means you have to omit many minor details. The core story of The Great Gatsby is about Gatsby and the world he lived in, not about Nick or Nick's potential attraction to Gatsby. In book form, there is plenty of room for the subplot suggestion that Nick is gay -- and the author Fitzgerald introduced the suggestion so subtly that most readers miss it. In the movie, however, throwing "Nick might be gay" at viewers along with everything else, in just 2 or 3 hours, could overwhelm them and/or distract from the core story -- and I'm not sure how it could be done as subtly on-screen as Fitzgerald pulled it off in the prose.  <sep>  Q: Why did the Great Gasby (2013) movie erase the hints of Nick Carraway's homosexuality? A: I'd guess the movie's motive for not introducing the McKee subplot is because that was only a minor subplot of the book  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would the writer include this subplot in the book?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick. She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use. USB stick is easily recognizable to the viewership as a data storage device, and why she didn't give a 'better' more scifi thing such as a tesseract. After this, she disappears, entering a new plane of existence. Which also allowed her to text the police officer "I am everywhere" She has become omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. IE, All powerful, all knowing, and all present. The USB is full of information for humanity to use.  <sep>  Q: Why did Lucy convert herself into a USB at the end of the film? A: Lucy didn't turn herself into a USB stick  Q: What did she turn herself into? A: She changed into a kind of 'super magic quantum computer' thing to convert her gained knowledge over time and space into a digital form current day scientists can use  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So does she die in the end or live on in some form?

SOLUTION:
Yes