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: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality." <sep> Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What Is a writing device?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: The plot by MI 6 and the CIA is to give Le Chiffre no choice but to turn himself in. They had no legal right to arrest him, lack of evidence and all. Once he lost the money, both organizations hoped the pressure by the real criminal contacts would force Chiffre to turn evidence over, instead of being killed. Both organizations are playing a long game in this. There was no expected immediate payout in the plan. If they arrest him, they would reveal their hand in the events and blow the operation. Additionally, Leiter was playing this by ear. The only reason the CIA could arrange this was because MI-6 decided it got too expensive and Bond was willing to work with them. It was a field decision that wasn't part of the actual CIA plan (Leiter was expected to win). <sep> Q: Why didn't Felix Leiter catch Le Chiffre after the game was done? A: Leiter was playing this by ear <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened at the end of the game?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally. <sep> Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How do the Alpha dragons exert dominance or control?
answer:
Yes