instruction:
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:'.
question:
CONTEXT: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption. The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason. It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death if there was another way out of the situation. Remember, his only question upon seeing Sherlock (and the reason behind all his anger) was, why he was not informed that Sherlock was still alive. <sep> Q: Did Sherlock explain to John why he faked his death? A: If I remember correctly, whether Sherlock explained the reason behind him faking his death to John was not shown in the show. It was left for the audience to make an assumption Q: Doesn't he tell John that is he didn't fake his own death that John would die? A: The way John reacted when he met Sherlock for the first time after that fake incident, we can assume that Sherlock didn't get the time to explain the reason Q: Oh, I see, so what do we know about John? A: It can also be assumed that, John realises that it was necessary as he knows Sherlock very well and Sherlock won't go to this extent of faking his own death <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, anything else you can tell me to help me better understand?
answer:
Yes

question:
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?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut, he's a ground-based theoretical physicist who volunteered to lead this last-ditch mission. His knowledge of space flight is limited to a single mission and his training was done on the cheap by flight controllers who themselves haven't ever been into space. It's clear that he doesn't recognise the danger. He ignores Coop's verbal warning as well as the master alarm, something a real astronaut would never ever do. On top of that, he seems to be displaying major symptoms of mental illness; paranoia, psychosis and disassociation, all things that would be likely to lead to impaired judgement. <sep> Q: Why does Dr Mann act so stupidly? A: The short answer is that Mann isn't a highly trained astronaut <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is DR Mann an astronaut?
answer:
Yes