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: Well, in answer to the first part: Yes, the water in which John Loomis (Chiwetel Ejiofor) was swimming/bathing when Ann Burden (Margot Robbie) came up to him is irradiated. Without getting too "spoilery", the area in which Ann lives seems to be one of very few (if not the only) radiation-free zones at the time of the story. However, the water in which John was swimming comes from outside of that area (the waterfall). As for the beneficial effects of the bath, I think the link to the "Silkwood Shower" reference by @Will-Feldman is probably as good an explanation as any. Try to get as much of the irradiated water off of the body as possible. John is obviously still going to be affected by his exposure, but there's no reason to allow more of the radiation to seep in if it can be prevented. <sep> Q: Why does Margot Robbie wash Chiwetel Ejiofor in Z for Zachariah? A: the water in which John was swimming comes from outside of that area (the waterfall Q: Is there radiation in the water? A: irradiated Q: What does irradiated mean? A: irradiated <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Margo have to wash anyone else?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation. <sep> Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Beatrix deserve to die?

A: No
****
Q: CONTEXT: The point is that it's not about being smart.. It's about knowing what you are talking about and and having the guts to hold a position. We see, in the scene prior to the elevator sequence, that the other CIA officials are all hedging their bets about the location of Bin Laden, Chastain's character is the only one who will commit to being certain. This is why, even though, all of them are smart... he discounts that as being the deciding factor. Being knowledgeable, and committed to an opinion, even an internally unpopular one, carries more weight with him Which is why, in the very next scene, the Director talks to Chastain's character to weigh her up for himself. He's convinced, not only by her certainty but by the fact that the only thing she's done for the CIA in her 12 years...is hunt Bin Laden. <sep> Q: What is the meaning of the elevator scene in Zero Dark Thirty? A: We see, in the scene prior to the elevator sequence, that the other CIA officials are all hedging their bets about the location of Bin Laden Q: Why is she so certain? A: It's about knowing what you are talking about and and having the guts to hold a position <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did anyone disagree with her?

A:
No
****