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: We don't know. All we know is that Chiron assaulted him with the chair. Certainly he was injured but we don't know the severity of the injuries. Given that Chiron is only sent to juvie it's extremely unlikely that Terrel was killed. Thus a charge of the Assault variety would seem likely but that is also unknown. We also don't know how long Chiron was in juvie but most age out of the juvenile system at 18, assuming he was tried as a minor. However, there is a 10 year time jump between the assault and when we see Chiron again so any sentence would have been less than that since Chiron has now relocated to another city, is considerably larger than before and is now established as a drug dealer. <sep> Q: What happened to Terrel?

Output: Yes

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: To the first question: He realized he killed his sister (and lover). He had imagined that she did kill herself, after the bad mouth from the others (including Oh Dae-su, that's why the revenge). But in the process, he (I can't remember his name) is reminded that he couldn't stand the rumors, so he killed her. As this falls into place in his mind, he kills himself out of guilt. For the second question, I didn't get that Oh was hypnotized again at the end, to forget that about Mi-do. I thought he cut out the tongue so that the antagonist would not tell Mi-do. If that's so with hypnosis again (I don't own the DVD, can't check), I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end. <sep> Q: I am wondering why the antagonist kills himself at the end of "Old Boy'? A: he kills himself out of guilt <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So did the final hypnosis work on the protagonist?

Output: Yes

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly. <sep> Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based?
Output: Yes