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 it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In the end when Vidal follows Ofelia to the labyrinth is Ofelia talking to the faun?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: This is not really explicitly explained in the film (it's only briefly mentioned), but implicitly: Anton Ego is a famous critic known for scathing reviews and an extremely finicky taste. When Linguini holds a press conference, Ego arrives and announces in front of the reporters that he'll be reviewing Linguini's restaurant - so this review is highly publicized and anticipated. Then, surprisingly, not only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats. So it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder. [Also bear in mind that his experience with Remy was a real eye-opener and changed his beliefs. Since the film doesn't specify when Ego lost his job and reputation, it's possible he continued to write reviews that were significantly mellower (since he now also believed in Chef Gusteau's notion that 'anyone can cook'), and that his fanbase was disappointed and simply stopped reading them.] <sep> Q: What was the reason Anton Ego lost his job? A: he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I thought he didn't mention rats in his review?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I agree with @Paulster2 - just to make you laugh while scratching your head. But I want to add that Billy comes back to the classroom while the teacher is performing a tortured dance of anguish, so I think the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis. Adam Sandler thinks it's funny to show that a sweet Kindergarten teacher has this troubled psychological condition underneath it all. (And I remember laughing at the paste on the face, so I must think it's funny too!) <sep> Q: Why does the teacher put paste on her face? A: the paste on her face is just another level of her psychosis Q: There is a strange scene and the scene ends right after she does this. A: just to make you laugh while scratching your head <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So there is no other relevance of the scene?
[EX A]:
Yes