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:'.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police. <sep> Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions Q: Why does she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who pays Lisa?

Output: No

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The 2007 behind the scenes special 77 Secrets of The Fairly Odd Parents Revealed! explicitly states that Tiberius is a reference to Kirk. There are a number of Star Trek references in the show too. His tree house turned into an Enterprise bridge look-alike in the same video which is from the episode "Boy Toy". <sep> Q: Is Timmy Turner's middle name a reference to Star Trek? A: Tiberius is a reference to Kirk Q: Why did the writer make that connection? A: There are a number of Star Trek references in the show <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are some other ones?

Output: Yes

Input: Consider 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 <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong?
Output: Yes