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: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23. Sometimes when a TV movie is shot ahead of a series, actors only sign contracts for the one appearance. In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series. He also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D <sep> Q: Why was the game designer actor replaced in the show "Level Up"? A: actors only sign contracts for the one appearance Q: Why do they do this? A: In the interim they'll get other jobs (which probably pay far better) that have contracts that are more strict and don't allow for the time to work on more than one series Q: It seems only one actor was replaced, is this for a particular reason? A: also has his own Adult Swim show coming out this summer, so he's pretty busy. :D Q: Is there a reason the actor was changed from the movie to the series? A: Eric Andre (who played Max in the movie) is a series regular on the upcoming show Don't Trust The B***h in Apartment 23 Q: Why couldn't he do both? A: Eric Andre <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was he busy on other projects?
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 <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think the full phrase is?
answer:
Yes

question:
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 Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case? A: The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Shouldn't the have Alicia, Kalinda or Will point that the case should be reopened?
answer:
Yes