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:'.

Example Input: CONTEXT: Peter Ward was accused of murdering his family, but thought to be insane. He was sent to Greenhaven. He was eventually released. As Will Atenton he creates the family and story he needs to exist in his old house, while only seeing it as it used to be... thus making his way back to his home. There, he eventually uncovers who he is and who actually did kill his family. The audience learns why his wife shot him at this time. When was Peter in Greenhaven? After his family was killed. Why was he considered nuts? He insisted that he was innocent despite the evidence and lack of other suspects. The death of his family fractured his personality and drove him temporarily insane, to the point where he created his alter-ego of Will Atenton. <sep> Q: When did Peter/Will go to Greenhaven?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: I bet it had something to do with her consciousness never really disappearing. My interpretation is that, in the movie, bodies are mortal. They die. But a person's consciousness, their awareness and ability to interact with the physical universe, is timeless and is not tied to the mortal body they inhabit for a while. (That's just my guess. The movie was pretty trippy and didn't explain everything fully.) <sep> Q: What did Lucy mean by "We never really die"? A: I bet it had something to do with her consciousness never really disappearing Q: Did Lucy become immortal? A: a person's consciousness, their awareness and ability to interact with the physical universe, is timeless and is not tied to the mortal body they inhabit for a while <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So is that what happened when Lucy's brain usability got to 100% or something?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: I disagree that Mike isn't the sort of person who would entertain a name change like this. Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on. Mike is the kind of guy who does the job he's asked to do and doesn't ask any questions that he doesn't need the answers to. As long as you play it straight, he will too. Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together, if third parties only knew the name Saul. It would also be an indiscretion to casually blow Saul's cover by calling him Jimmy just because Mike knows his real name. Of all the characters seen in either show, Mike is the most discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations these people so often find themselves embroiled in. Unless he had a good reason NOT to call Jimmy "Saul," I believe he would do so without batting an eyelash. <sep> Q: Why does Mike call Jimmy "Saul"? A: Mike is exactly the sort of person who would hear "I've changed my name to Saul" and shrug it off with a casual "Whatever," and then proceed to call him only Saul from then on Q: How did Mike know to call Jimmy by the alternate name? A: I've changed my name to Saul Q: Why did Jimmy change his name? A: discreet and conscientious of the sensitive nature of the illegal operations Q: Cool, is there anything else you can tell me? A: Refusing to call Jimmy "Saul" would potentially disrupt any shady dealings they were involved in together <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I understand. Is there anything else?
Example Output:
Yes