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: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon. <sep> Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case? A: The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened? A: Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long does that usually take?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: By this point in the narrative, Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire. The affair with the bullets missing him in Marvin's apartment had convinced him that God had a higher purpose for him, and by allowing Ringo to take what he needed, Jules was ensuring that he wouldn't have to kill him for attempting to rob him. This was the first step towards Jules' new life. He was not only buying/saving Ringo's life, but also his own. <sep> Q: What should I know about the scene? A: Jules had already decided that he was going to change his life - he no longer wanted to be a killer for hire <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he want to change his life?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: 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?
Example Output:
Yes