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: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either. <sep> Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: 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 Q: So did the final hypnosis work on the protagonist? A: I think it should be open to interpretation for the viewer what Oh knows at the end <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I felt horrible after watching this movie. Is the movie disturbing to you?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Well no. The Genie was freed. Therefore he had no more obligation to grant the wishes, regardless of whether Aladdin had any wishes left. If we are going to count the wishes though, the movie does count the saving from drowning as the second wish making freeing the Genie the third. This would have made the Nile wish pointless either way, since either the Genie was free to deny the wish as he was free, or he was free to deny it because it would have been the fourth wish. <sep> Q: Does the Genie trick Aladdin with the third wish?
[EX A]:
Yes