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:'.

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 Q: What happened at the end of the game? A: e lost the money <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who did the CIA want?
Yes

CONTEXT: Oskar does not become a vampire in the book. It is Hakan who becomes a vampire in the book. Also in the book, it is disclosed that Eli is a boy who was castrated years ago when he was converted to a vampire. In the movie, neither Hakan becomes a vampire nor is Eli disclosed to be a boy. Oskar and Eli flee. And as atm mentions in the comment, Oskar will grow old just like Hakan. <sep> Q: What happened to Eli and Oskar in Let the right one in?
Yes

CONTEXT: I have watched the movie you have said. Yes, Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor. In those time, treason, bravery, etc. were highly valued. As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes. So I think its necessary and Edmond cannot be wholly considered a traitor. <sep> Q: Was Edmond Dantes Actually a Traitor? A: Edmond does accept the letter, but considering the time-frame (its not a modern movie in a modern society), I think Edmond cannot be considered a traitor Q: Why did they show him taking a letter from Napoleon in the movie, but not the book? A: As for the movie itself, adding that letter-taking part creates more tension among the viewers and questions the character of Edmond Dantes <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would he have been considered a traitor in a modern time frame?
No