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:'.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: There's no canon answer I've ever heard or read. Also, don't forget that Wick was a hard-core hitman and killer from a very early age, so saying he was a "puppy" or "fragile" in the beginning doesn't hold a lot of merit, although it could be said his wife dying brought out the coldness that was always inside. <sep> Q: John receives a small puppy and the beginning and later on takes with him a stronger piitbull puppy Was this and act of symbolisim? A: Wick was a hard-core hitman and killer from a very early age, so saying he was a "puppy" or "fragile" in the beginning doesn't hold a lot of merit Q: After his wifes death, john receives a new puppy named Daisy. Did get the puppy to cope with his wifes death? A: it could be said his wife dying brought out the coldness that was always inside <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did John overcome his sadness after his wife died?

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: Mike has not spent a dime of Fring's drug money, which is revealed when he is first interrogated by the DEA. All Mike's earnings from Fring's employment are put away for his grand-daughter. Thus perhaps his PI work for Goodman covers his living costs. Technically this might be a conflict of interest, but these are not moral, law-abiding citizens. Additionally, working for Goodman allows Mike to keep an eye on Walt and Jesse, who are very much part of Fring's interests. This would explain why Gus would allow Mike to work for Goodman. Now if Goodman were to ask Mike to tail Fring, Fring might have put a stop to Mike's extra work. <sep> Q: Why would Mike need a part time job as a PI for Saul? A: daughter <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would the part-time job not cause any conflict of interests?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan. <sep> Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies? A: The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action Q: What changes were made to make the movies more like the Bourne series? A: a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What Bond movie was the first to star Craig?

Ex Output:
No