instruction:
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:'.
question:
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep. <sep> Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho? A: a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the sons after being left?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: I just did a bit of digging on your behalf regarding this line, and there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source. That said, I found several interpretations along the way, including: 1) "You cannot wash away your sins."; 2) The blood is worn as a badge of merit on the blade; 3) The blood remains on the blade and not on your hands (meaning you are relatively guilt-free). Personally, considering the overtly religious themes within the film, I would side with option 1, especially since Priest Vallon is saying the line. <sep> Q: What's the meaning behind the phrase "The blood stays on the blade"? A: there seems to be no concrete definition of it from any official source <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In Gangs of New York, a character is told not to wipe blood off a razor when he cuts himself cause the blood stays on the blade. What could that mean?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number). <sep> Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight Q: Who does she call? A: Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?
answer:
Yes