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:'.

[Q]: CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves. <sep> Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud?
[A]: Yes

[Q]: CONTEXT: He starts walking as soon as he pushes her, and he's halfway up the stairs by the time bystanders notice she's under the train. He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him. As for security systems, if you watch more of the series, you'll notice that Frank is always aware of when he is being recorded. I don't believe his action was spur of the moment. He chose to meet her there and do the deed because he had an way out where any recording of him wouldn't be enough to identify him, especially with the hat and glasses. Would that be possible in the real world? Could there actually be a blind spot all the way out of the station? Unclear. Her death was likely ruled an accident because metro police departments are overworked, and there isn't any immediate evidence to the contrary. The fact that they wouldn't find the angle and direction of her fall suspicious bother me too, I don't have an answer for that. <sep> Q: How could Frank escape the crime scene without any witnesses? A: He walks quickly but calmly, he doesn't run away. In unremarkable clothing, it isn't strange that no one stopped him Q: Was the subway station empty? A: bystanders Q: We're they in a 'blind spot'? A: Unclear <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there important details after the first episode?
[A]: No

[Q]: CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question. <sep> Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill?
[A]:
Yes