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 Input:
CONTEXT: The purpose of the end scene of the movie is to have the Narrator finally conquer his 'problems' in the form of killing Tyler. He cannot simply shoot at him as he is just a hallucination of his own mind and the bullet would just fly off into nothing. While before beating him up would have worked, it was just a physical representation of a mental battle. By bringing in an actual object into the fray, his attempts at Tyler's life are pointless. We see the Narrator finally realize that he has been in control all along and this is why he is presented able to take the gun from Tyler, because he is the one actually holding the gun. It is then he realizes that he must follow Tyler's own advice and "hit bottom". Only by doing so, is he able to control his own body and "kill" Tyler. To hit bottom he realizes he must do something life-threatening and plain insane. Whereas the bullet only blew a hole in his cheek, it was his mental F--- You to Tyler, showing him that he can take care of himself now, which is why the bullet is shown to have gone through the back of Tyler's head, killing him. <sep> Q: How/Why did Tyler Durden got shot in the head? A: The purpose of the end scene of the movie is to have the Narrator finally conquer his 'problems' in the form of killing Tyler Q: So, that is the reason he was shot in the head? A: it was his mental F--- You to Tyler Q: Okay, but the narrator was shot in the mouth, so was that to shut him up...per se? A: Whereas the bullet only blew a hole in his cheek, it was his mental F--- You to Tyler, showing him that he can take care of himself now <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wasn't Tyler just a hallucination though?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Mike has not spent a dime of Fring's drug money, which is revealed when he is first interrogated by the DEA. All Mike's earnings from Fring's employment are put away for his grand-daughter. Thus perhaps his PI work for Goodman covers his living costs. Technically this might be a conflict of interest, but these are not moral, law-abiding citizens. Additionally, working for Goodman allows Mike to keep an eye on Walt and Jesse, who are very much part of Fring's interests. This would explain why Gus would allow Mike to work for Goodman. Now if Goodman were to ask Mike to tail Fring, Fring might have put a stop to Mike's extra work. <sep> Q: Why would Mike need a part time job as a PI for Saul? A: daughter <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would the part-time job not cause any conflict of interests?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation, I was a huge fan of this show and I was devastated when it was cut short, a couple of minor issues with your statement, his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts' I do think that's where the show was going though as it was hinted, or we where led to believe that, I remember near the end Sam tried to win his soul back playing coin flip, but fails obviously. If they revived this show I'd be so happy! <sep> Q: Is the Devil Sams father in the TV series reaper? A: It was never 'confirmed' as it was cancelled before any validation or confirmation Q: Why did SAm do things for the devil? A: his parents sold his soul to the devil for wealth I believe, like the good old 'first born pacts <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: WHen did they sell his soul to the devil?

Ex Output:
No