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: It's unlikely they made any money from the sales of "Man of Constant Sorrow" that happened during the movie. When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work. Most likely they were signing the rights to the recording over to the station owner in exchange for a quick payment. The "band" themselves had no idea they were popular until they sang at Stoke's fund raiser, as evidence by the claim that "no one will believe we're a real band", and the shock at the crowd's reaction to their song. We don't have any idea what happened to them after the end of the movie, but it would be reasonable to expect they eventually got signed to a record contract. The governor would probably have wanted them to keep recording music, if nothing else, so he could continue to ride their popularity. That contract would have covered any future recordings; it's also possible they could negotiate royalties for future sales of their hit song, and the station owner would cave in to keep them happy. But that's just speculation, since the last we know of the boys they're going to go work for the governor. <sep> Q: Who is the radio owner? A: Stoke Q: Did the actual band ever get a contract signed? A: When they recorded the song originally, they were asked to sign papers, and paid $10 each for the work <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the name of the song?
[A]: Yes

[Q]: CONTEXT: Carol had no problem understanding the guard. And the guard had no problem understanding her. The issue that Carol thought she had, was caused by pure confusion on the guards side, as the guard just witnessed some pretty freaky stuff and was still shocked by it. The guard simply didn't respond in a timely manner (actually not really at all), which made Carol think that the guard didn't understand her. <sep> Q: Why is Carol unable to understand English? A: Carol had no problem understanding <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is her "universal translator" working?
[A]: Yes

[Q]: CONTEXT: From reading the article that @Richard has linked in the comments, it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White. That's almost indisputable. However I never interpreted it that way when I watched it, I just assumed it was simply the building of a mutual respect, and a mentor/mentee relationship. However, as the article goes on to say that their relationship is similar to "wakashudo", and knowing Tarantino's affinity with samurai culture (which he made 2 films about) it is very possible that this is the relationship dynamic he intended to portray. Of course, like most movies, it is open to interpretation. Therefore whilst the subtext is certainly there, and it was almost certainly intended that way by the writer/director, it is also subtle enough so that it doesn't necessarily force the audience to interpret the movie that way. <sep> Q: Relationship between "Mr. Orange" and "Mr. White" in "Reservoir Dogs"? A: it is clear that there certainly is a subtext of a homoerotic nature between the two characters Mr. Orange and Mr. White <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who says "Gay subtext always makes movies better?
[A]:
Yes