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: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans (which is why Anna got sent to the chopper unarmed), and at the conclusion he decided to engage in hand-to-hand combat against Dutch, whom he deemed to be a worthy opponent. <sep> Q: Why did the first Predator come to Earth? A: The short answer, which is probably the best answer, is that he was an experienced hunter and wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier Q: Was he already an established hunter? A: he was an experienced hunter Q: Was he just hunting for more trophies? A: wanted to hunt "the most dangerous game"; a combat soldier. You'll note that he never kills unarmed humans <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see. So he would only attack armed humans. Got it
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning. He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing. This had two implications, first is that he wasn't like Nicky and the second, he had far too much press after he survived the bombing as he was the center of attention with the gaming board. They really couldn't kill him without proving they (the bosses) were involved. <sep> Q: Why was Sam "Ace" Rothstein spared by the bosses? A: Because Sam was their top earner and with the change in casinos after their trial, they kept him around to keep earning Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim A: He had already proven himself during his previous trials about his license and not only that, he survived the bombing <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The car bombing wasnt authorized and Nikky was the one responsible for that, so why was Sam spared by the bosses?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself. <sep> Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie?
Example Output:
Yes