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: Keeping in mind what we now know (that the monster is The Man In Black), we can only speculate at what John actually saw. Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster (if memory serves, this is what happened with Mr. Eko for example). What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself. <sep> Q: Why didn't Locke say he saw the monster? A: What John saw probably affected him in a way that he wanted to keep whatever vision he saw to himself Q: Why do you think John wanted to do this? A: we can only speculate at what John actually saw Q: Can you shed any other light on his motives or his background? A: Each person who saw the smoke monster presumably saw more than just a large cloud of smoke - they saw some kind of vision in the monster <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about the monster, is there some deeper meaning there?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease. <sep> Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment Q: What do you think the full phrase is? A: It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did they feel towards Clark?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: IMO, it's simply due to the fact that film is a visual medium. Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene. Probably because of that, taking the time (and some special effects money) to show it and explain it was avoided. Also, having a different actor being Harry would be distracting for some of the viewers, even when explained, and it would also probably feel old (as in "we've seen this trick, why repeat it?"). So, unless there is a real need - from the perspective of the scene, not the plot - for Harry to be disguised, he's not. <sep> Q: Why did Harry not use Polyjuice Potion at the wedding of Bill and Fleur? A: Harry's disguise made every sense, and so he had it in the book (where you can stuff loads of details with minor explanations), but it was not overly important for the scene <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were there death eaters at the wedding?

A:
No
****