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: He didn't have any solid leads to go on. He didn't know where he was being kept before he eavesdropped on Malcolm and he only did that because he was following his mother after she reacted strangely on the news Walter was dead. He only got that news after his last act of cleaning up the neighbourhood got him the clue he needed. If he knew where he was in the first place, he wouldn't of believed the mob guy (saying Walter was dead). <sep> Q: Why didn't Oliver Queen rescue Walter sooner than he did? A: He didn't have any solid leads to go on <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you feel he was tentative?

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: The Michael Bay Spin I'm joking, but as far as I can tell the technique doesn't really have a name. All that's happening is that the camera is moving around subjects in the foreground, and the background appears to move quicker thanks to the simple fact that it's further away. The reason I refer to it as the Michael Bay Spin is that director Michael Bay has used this exact shot (with different actors/locations, of course) in a lot of his films. In fact, the inclusion of that shot in Hot Fuzz is a direct reference to Michael Bay - Bad Boys II (directed by Bay) is bought up earlier on in the film, and if I remember correctly, the shot in question is actually shown to the audience while Nicholas Angel and Danny watch the film at Danny's house. <sep> Q: What is this camera effect used in Hot Fuzz? A: The Michael Bay Spin I'm joking, but as far as I can tell the technique doesn't really have a name. All that's happening is that the camera is moving around subjects in the foreground <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Have you seen this used before?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea. <sep> Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright Q: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies? A: intended <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there any other notable information about them?

Ex Output:
No