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:'.

Q: 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 <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The bosses decide to eliminate anyone involved or with knowledge of the skim

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: NOTE: OBSA (One Big Spoiler Alert) His character relied on common sense of all seamen, as he saw it. There are several instances throughout the movie where his character makes statements to his crew as to why he's doing things the way he is, which, while unpopular at the outset, made sense and was bought into after the explanation. He used this same common sense seamanship to bring the conclusion which happened. With the ending, he took a gamble, relying on his instincts as a veteran of the seas. He didn't know the Russian ship was going to fire on the base, but was hoping for some kind of resolution which didn't require his boat to fire. While he was given the order to fire from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Donnegan, he knew it would create bigger issues and further hostilities. Having the Russian Captain Andropov onboard and believing in him was a good step towards making this happen. Without Andropov, it probably wouldn't have turned out the same way. He trusted the Captain to help him and hoped the Captain trusted him in the same way. Andropov's intervention with the crew of the Russian vessel allowed him the best course of action. It wasn't that he forced someone else to fire, he only hoped it would happen without his having to do it. In the end, everything worked out for the best (ex machina?). <sep> Q: How did Gerard Butler resolve the ending of Hunter Killer?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park. <sep> Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Charlie take one of?

A:
Yes
****