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: When you get a gift and keep it, you have to put it somewhere and then you have to remember where you put it. Each time you move to a new home, you have to pack the gift, then unpack it and put it in a new place that will also have to be remembered. Maude's action of throwing away the gift at the moment she got it meant she'll always remember exactly where it is, even though she will no longer have it. The movie Harold & Maude is all about how age affects your perceptions of the world and of others. Young Harold sees a situation from one angle, but the elderly Maude looks at the same situation and has a totally different perception. Maude has reached the age where possessions are not that important any more, but memories are. She's lived in many different places and has had many different things, and now realizes how ephemeral places and things are. But memories last as long as you do. <sep> Q: What is the meaning of Maude words to Harold after throwing the gift? A: Maude's action of throwing away the gift at the moment she got it meant she'll always remember exactly where it is, even though she will no longer have it <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Maude choose this way to remember the gift?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: For US Federal civilian employees, there is no prohibition against having spouses (or immediate family members) working in the same agency or even the same unit. The only prohibition is that one of them cannot be in a supervisory chain of command above the other (conflict of interest/nepotism). I'm fairly certain state agencies would have similar restrictions as well. As in any workplace setting, it depends on the culture of the agency (fictional CBI in this instance) or personalities of those involved/affected on how much coworker dating relationships are on the down-low. It can vary. Normally it's not a big deal unless a supervisor starts dating his/her subordinate or something like that. It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field. So the characters might want keep it on the DL just to avoid it coming up in office politics/rumor mill/etc. <sep> Q: Is it forbidden to have a relationship in CBI in reality? A: It looks like the CBI in this case prefers keep personal relationships to a minimal so that it won't adversely affect decisions out in the field Q: Is CBI a real thing in America or was it made up for the Mentalist? A: fictional CBI in this instance Q: Is there a comparable department in the US in reality? A: US Federal civilian employees <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they allowed to have personal relationships while working together or will they have to quit their jobs like the CBI agents?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him. The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack. Therefore Nina basically has to get Alexis free for the Drazen to make the final assasination attempt <sep> Q: Why does Nina Myers call Palmer in episode 22 to help save Jack from the Drazens? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him Q: Okay, I'm confused about one thing...why did Nina help Jack if she was a mole? A: The Drazens planned this but saw an opportunity to get Alexis free by trading him for Jack Q: Oh I see, why does Nina unexpectedly call Palmer and asks him to help save Jack in episode 22? A: Her objective is to ensure Palmer is killed - and Jack is the best way to get the phone bomb close to him <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, but why would she go out of her way when she obviously didn't have to?
answer:
Yes