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:'.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The planet was toxic due to the waste that humanity created. As such, any soil and water would kill the plants that grew there, and it was no longer feasible for humanity to stay. The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again. The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them. It's not infeasible to think that the ship had a seed vault in it, given its phenomenal size, and original mission was to return to Earth at some point. <sep> Q: How can the Axiom computer know Earth is safe based on the one little plant EVE found? A: The plant is proof that Earth is ready to produce life again Q: But what if the plant was poisonous? A: The soil and the water are safe enough for a plant to grow with them <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the film?

Output: Yes

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote. <sep> Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment?

Output: Yes

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun. You've mentioned lots of directors in your question who have done it and it's likely they all got a pretty good kick out of it. Think Hitchcock's many roles or Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs, or Pulp Fiction. There's also a tradition argument. Stan Lee, for example, has done it for so long now that it's expected and many fans get enjoyment out of spotting him in each of his roles. The same applies to Hitchcock. After the fun and tradition reasons, it's certainly plausible to suggest because they can. Many directors don't have the fame or recognition for a cameo role to be significant. But if someone like Tarantino, Scorcese or Peter Jackson does it, it's instantly recognisable given their fame. This can be compared to other, less famous, directors who wouldn't be recognised. Therefore, it certainly carries that making cameos gives them airtime and keeps them recognisable in the public eye. These are just a few of the reasons. I'm sure other arguments could be made, such as the fact it saves money (such as in the case of a longer role, e.g. Tarantino in Django), but it seems to be mostly about a mixture of fun and tradition. <sep> Q: Why do directors make cameo appearances in their movies? A: There's no overarching right answer to this. I think there are a few reasons for it: For starters, it's fun <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What other reason would their be?
Output: Yes