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:'.

Example Input: CONTEXT: In the cab, the joke is that the car is so old and/or cheaply built that Bob expected the radio to be AM only. With Tina, the joke is not about the availability of FM but about the content. FM is dominated by recently-recorded popular music, and AM stations are more likely to play oldies and news and call-in advice programs - the kind of stuff kids don't want to listen to, execpt maybe Tina because she's weird. Zeke's comment means he's bored by the entertainment being provided by Tina, and wants something more exciting. <sep> Q: Is that some kind of inside joke to the show or the area the show is supposed to take place in? A: In the cab, the joke is that the car is so old and/or cheaply built that Bob expected the radio to be AM only Q: Is there anything else you can tell me? A: With Tina, the joke is not about the availability of FM but about the content Q: Oh I see, what was the joke exactly? It don't really seem too funny to me. A: FM is dominated by recently-recorded popular music, and AM stations are more likely to play oldies and news and call-in advice programs <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the difference of FM and AM other than what they play?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation. <sep> Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: I think what is really going on is that anyone going into the casino would be put under the spell of the lotus flower (assuming consumption) and after that just doesn't care. The "proprietors" of the casino don't care. Their whole purpose is to draw people in and keep them there. Any "authority" who would normally be keeping this sort of thing from happening would more than likely get drawn in by the flower as well, so too, wouldn't care. It's not illegal for a minor to go into a casino. It is only illegal for them to play the games. If nobody is looking or caring who is playing the games, let it ride. <sep> Q: How can Percy and his friends play all the games in casino?
Example Output:
Yes