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:'.

Example input: CONTEXT: I think it's deliberately ambiguous. If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world. If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them. I think part of Del Toro's purpose in the film was to maintain the plausibility of both of these interpretations. <sep> Q: Is Ofelia just dreaming things to get herself in a fairy world? A: If it's fantasy, then of course only Ofelia can see these thing because she imagined them Q: Are the things happening for real but visible only to Ofelia? A: If it's real, the inconsistencies are easily explained by Vidal's fascist belief system. These elements simply are not part of his world <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When Vidal pulls the mandrake root out of Ofelia's mother's bed, is it just a normal root?
Example output: No
Example explanation: The answer is not mentioned in the text. Hence not answerable.
Q: CONTEXT: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment. It was an expression of humans' attitude towards Clark. Just like criminals who are not accepted as 'normal' members of a society and stay behind bars in prisons or lines in this particular case, and treated differently from the rest of the society, Clark was also a stranger, an alien whose intentions or nature wasn't fully understood, so seeing 'behind the line' phrase behind Clark bears that symbolism in my opinion. So you can guess that he would be handed over to Zod. Also note - if we continue our analogy with criminals - that he hasn't been tried/appeared before a judge yet. People see him later in action, and he is judged by his actions, and afterwards accepted as an ally i.e. acquitted. And the reason it was painted over maybe because the rest of the phrase was irrelevant, and also if it said detainees - he is not really a detainee, wasn't detained, he surrendered. Or maybe because they couldn't really detain him, he ripped handcuffs off with ease. <sep> Q: What is the full phrase painted over on the ground and its purpose? A: My guess is that it was relevant only at that particular moment <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What do you think the full phrase is?
A:
Yes