You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Given a paragraph about cooking, 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:'.

CONTEXT: Duck feet will render plenty of gelatin because of the amount of cartilage, same as chicken feet. Any bird's feet are a good choice.The method for making stock is pretty much the same no matter what you put into it, so yes, you can follow your favourite recipe for chicken stock and substitute duck feet. The only thing to keep in mind is that duck feet, like any other duck parts, are substantially more fatty than their chicken equivalents, so assuming you want a clear or mostly-clear stock, you'll have to spend a lot of time skimming.Alternatively you can clean the feet and other bones by boiling them in plain water for 5-10 minutes, then dumping it all out and starting over - which is what your linked recipe suggests. I don't usually do this for brown stocks because you lose a lot of flavour, but if you're starting from raw then it won't make much difference and it's an easy/lazy way to get rid of a lot of the fat at once. <sep> Q: Can I use duck feet to make duck stock A: The method for making stock is pretty much the same no matter what you put into it, so yes, you can follow your favourite recipe for chicken stock and substitute duck feet Q: Does it add the same flavor and mouth feel? A: The only thing to keep in mind is that duck feet, like any other duck parts, are substantially more fatty than their chicken equivalents <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does this change things?
Solution: Yes
Why? The question asks about how the stock can be less fatty or mostly clear. This can be infered from the previous conversation. The answer is written in the passage that if mostly clear stock is needed then one has spend a lot of time skimming.

New input: CONTEXT: I wouldn't say 'hazardous', but there's additional risk.You basically need to take the fully cooked bird, and cool it down quickly so it doesn't spend too long in the 'danger zone'. And the same for the stuffing.Then you have to reheat them back up to a safe temperature ... the stuffing you can add extra liquid to, and make sure it gets up to the necessary temperature, but the turkey itelf is going to be difficult to reheat without drying out (maybe if it were brined it'd be better, but still less than ideal).I'd say in all, you'd save some time the day of, but the total time spent is going to be much longer, there's an increased risk of food-related illness, and there's an overall lower quality.If the main interest is in reducing cooking time, I'd start with not stuffing the bird. I'd also make sure that it's well thawed in advance (too many people leave it for the night before). If you really wanted to reduce time, you might be able to butterfly the bird, but it'd then be too wide for most ovens. (maybe do it on two trays?) <sep> Q: Is it safe to fully cook a stuffed turkey the night before thanksgiving? A: I wouldn't say 'hazardous', but there's additional risk Q: Hello?###What are the additional risks? A: You basically need to take the fully cooked bird, and cool it down quickly so it doesn't spend too long in the 'danger zone <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: If I empty the cavity of stuffing after I cook it thoroughly, and reheat the turkey and stuffing separately the next day, will its consumption be hazardous?
Solution:
Yes