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: This irks me too, but I'm certain it's done to convey to the audience that the character is actually drinking. It's one of those tropes that people have become accustomed to, even though it isn't realistic. It's similar to the trope of "every time you turn on a microphone, it whines with feedback for a second, then settles down." Not realistic, but it clearly shows the audience what's going on. <sep> Q: Why does TV shows always make a full drink sound like an almost empty one? A: done to convey to the audience that the character is actually drinking Q: Is it a good technique? A: This irks me Q: Is it realistic? A: it isn't realistic <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do, they use this technique?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win). <sep> Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened at the end of the game?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease. <sep> Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment Q: What do you think the full phrase is? A: It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark Q: What did they feel towards Clark? A: Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Clark treat them differently?
answer:
No