Given a paragraph about cooking, 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:'.

Let me give you an example: CONTEXT: Duck feet will render plenty of gelatin because of the amount of cartilage, same as chicken feet. Any bird's feet are a good choice.The method for making stock is pretty much the same no matter what you put into it, so yes, you can follow your favourite recipe for chicken stock and substitute duck feet. The only thing to keep in mind is that duck feet, like any other duck parts, are substantially more fatty than their chicken equivalents, so assuming you want a clear or mostly-clear stock, you'll have to spend a lot of time skimming.Alternatively you can clean the feet and other bones by boiling them in plain water for 5-10 minutes, then dumping it all out and starting over - which is what your linked recipe suggests. I don't usually do this for brown stocks because you lose a lot of flavour, but if you're starting from raw then it won't make much difference and it's an easy/lazy way to get rid of a lot of the fat at once. <sep> Q: Can I use duck feet to make duck stock A: The method for making stock is pretty much the same no matter what you put into it, so yes, you can follow your favourite recipe for chicken stock and substitute duck feet Q: Does it add the same flavor and mouth feel? A: The only thing to keep in mind is that duck feet, like any other duck parts, are substantially more fatty than their chicken equivalents <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does this change things?
The answer to this example can be: Yes
Here is why: The question asks about how the stock can be less fatty or mostly clear. This can be infered from the previous conversation. The answer is written in the passage that if mostly clear stock is needed then one has spend a lot of time skimming.

OK. solve this:
CONTEXT: There are arguments of the universal validity of such rules, but there has long been an argument that reheated meat that was pre-cooked should always be brought to full safe temperature.The general idea is that cooked or not there is bacteria present. If heated to only the 100-120F range, you have reached the temperature of highest active growth of many pathogens, without killing them. Some will argue that this is safe, as long as you eat the item immediately, not let it sit and give time for that bacterial growth to bloom. I would even put credence to this for items which I knew the preparation and handling history, but for prefab type foods, like ground meats and especially poultry, I personally would be reluctant to take risks, I would bring it to temp. There also has always been disclaimers that the reheating to temp rule only applies to if you reheat at all, for instance, medium rare roast beef is often eaten cold as leftover, but the rule stated if you reheat, the reheat to what would have originally be considered a safe temperature, not part way. With something like a prepped burger, again, I personally would not eat it cold, and just thawing it might put you into an unknown zone. I would heat it. <sep> Q: Is therea minimum internal temperature for chicken? A: If heated to only the 100-120F range, you have reached the temperature of highest active growth of many pathogens, without killing them. Some will argue that this is safe <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is that the safest temperature?
Answer:
Yes