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:'.

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I think the key is the line "He could've gone for general, but he went for himself instead." Kurtz had apparently lost interest in climbing higher in the military ranks, which presumably would have taken him away from combat and the front lines. He seemed to want to go in the opposite direction -- toward the heat of the fight -- so Kurtz requested Airborne training as a first step toward returning to combat. Kurtz took himself out of the running for promotion by enrolling in Airborne training. Promotion would have required continuing to follow an advancing career path -- whereas Kurtz brought his career advancement to a halt by enrolling in Airborne training. <sep> Q: What was the significance of Kurtz joining airborne
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: It looks like you're asking about the 1980 Stanley Kubrick movie. In that movie it's not clearly defined the exact location of the hotel. However we are given a few facts to narrow down the location: The Overlook is located somewhere in the Colorado Rockies. The Overlook is 25 miles from the nearest town; Sidewinder. Sidewinder however is a fictional town, so this doesn't provide any real help narrowing down the Overlook's location. (Thanks to Raidri for providing this information). The Overlook is within driving distance from Boulder Colorado (where The family is staying prior to going to the Overlook). <sep> Q: Where is The Shining set? A: The Overlook is located somewhere in the Colorado Rockies Q: Is there a specific city or town? A: The Overlook is 25 miles from the nearest town; Sidewinder. Sidewinder however is a fictional town <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the hotel real or fictional?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: The biggest reason is that they weren't prepared for an attack. The Lannister army wasn't supposed to be there, but rather defending King's Landing and Casterly Rock. Lady Tyrell even goes on to say that fighting was never really the Tyrell's strong suit, so in-universe it wasn't a surprise that they fell so quickly. Also, wealth doesn't equate to army size. Just because the Tyrell's have a lot of money doesn't mean that they have a huge army. In fact, house Lannister is in significant debt because of it's huge army and all of the fighting they've had to do over the last few years. <sep> Q: How was a powerful house so easily defeated? A: The biggest reason is that they weren't prepared for an attack Q: In GOT season 7 episode 3, we see the Lannister army invade and defeat house Tyrell in Highgarden. The fight was so one-sided A: The Lannister army wasn't supposed to be there, but rather defending King's Landing and Casterly Rock <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Its established in season 7 episode 1 that the Lannister army is running short of supplies and money and house Tyrell richest house in Westeros.
[EX A]:
Yes