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:'.

CONTEXT: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions: fear that if Thorwald realizes he has been made by an outside observer, he will dispose of all the evidence and escape without prosecution... Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest, and the event was intended to appease Thorwald to some extent. He was already making mistakes (retaining his wife's wedding ring due to sentimentality), and Lisa was clinging onto the thought that their plan was not yet foiled. The arrest itself was actually a means of getting Lisa safely out of the apartment, and of getting the wedding ring (as evidence) into the hands of the police. <sep> Q: Why didn't Lisa tell the truth about Thorwald to the police? A: For the same reason that Jeff doesn't immediately call the police with his suspicions Q: Why does she get herself arrested? A: Lisa is buying more time by being taken under arrest <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who pays Lisa?
No

CONTEXT: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress. Samaritan could hear what the waitress said to him as well. Enough was the same for Samaritan to draw a line between the two identities. Bear in mind, in an early episode that Finch mentions how a series of almost totally unrelated facts are linked together by the Machine to determine the perpetrator of a crime. It doesn't take much if you can see and hear everything (and process it quick enough) to spot the connections. Perhaps it wasn't entirely conclusive, but nobody ever said that Samaritan insists on absolute proof before choosing an action. Once that connection was made, Samaritan could have analysed facial markers, his gait while walking, his voice records etc to achieve whatever level of proof it determined necessary to define Harold as a threat and to send its assets after him. <sep> Q: How did Finch's cover identity get blown? A: He had visited the cafe as Harold Finch previously and made the same order with Grace. He then repeated the visit in his Professor Whistler identity and was recognised by the waitress <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened when his identity was blown?
No

CONTEXT: The Yellow clothes are a type of 'Elder Endorsement', a ratification or 'pass'. The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder, so it is a sanctioned activity. If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there. It's unlikely the 'beasts' would harm her, but they'd certainly interfere and try and scare her off/back to the village. Ivy possibly doesn't know what they're capable of. Of course, Ivy could at this point tell them she knows they're not really beasts and knows what they're doing, but within the narrative of the film her maintaining her cloak's yellow lustre removes that possibility. <sep> Q: Why was Ivy concerned with wiping the mud off of her yellow cloak? A: The village guardians who dress up as the beasts know that if someone is dressed in yellow they have been given the Yellow cloak under the supervision of a village elder Q: And does that protect them in some way? A: If someone is found wandering without one, it will be assumed they're not supposed to be there <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: But, I thought Ivy knew the creatures weren't real?
Yes