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: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her. <sep> Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding Q: Is her "universal translator" working? A: The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her Q: Did she understand the security guard? A: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How was her ability to understand English erased?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: Because his father taught him not to involve in any (true loving) relationship in their line of work. Nicky knew they both fell truly for each other, so he decide to leave her for the sake of both of them. At the end scene, his father can be seen saying these things, and because of that mistake (losing focus) he took all his earned/stolen money. <sep> Q: Why did Nicky do what he did to Jess in New Orleans? A: Nicky knew they both fell truly for each other, so he decide to leave her for the sake of both of them Q: I still don't understand why he would do that? A: Because his father taught him not to involve in any (true loving) relationship in their line of work <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What line of work is that?
answer:
No

question:
CONTEXT: For US Federal civilian employees, there is no prohibition against having spouses (or immediate family members) working in the same agency or even the same unit. The only prohibition is that one of them cannot be in a supervisory chain of command above the other (conflict of interest/nepotism). I'm fairly certain state agencies would have similar restrictions as well. As in any workplace setting, it depends on the culture of the agency (fictional CBI in this instance) or personalities of those involved/affected on how much coworker dating relationships are on the down-low. It can vary. Normally it's not a big deal unless a supervisor starts dating his/her subordinate or something like that. It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field. So the characters might want keep it on the DL just to avoid it coming up in office politics/rumor mill/etc. <sep> Q: Is it forbidden to have a relationship in CBI in reality? A: It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field Q: Is CBI a real thing in America or was it made up for the Mentalist? A: fictional CBI in this instance <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there a comparable department in the US in reality?
answer:
Yes