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 Input:
CONTEXT: It is a common fact on TV that combat and injuries are stylized to make it look good rather than realistic. Have a look at pretty much any film fight where someone knows a martial art and compare that to someone who knows a martial art fighting for real. They are worlds apart. Even if you look at American Wrestling and BJJ you can see the difference. Knocking someone out with one punch is extremely difficult, especially if they are used to combat. I have taken an unpulled hit from a quarter staff on the top of my head which caused me to blackout later but I still didn't go down at the time. After almost 20 years of martial arts and living in rough areas I have only been knocked unconscious with one punch once, when I was 17 by the European Kickboxing champion. I was punched to the ground by a bouncer in Portsmouth when I was 20 but was still conscious until he stamped on my head. Most of the people in the Walking Dead would have starved or succumb to injuries by now if they were suffering this scenario for real. Not to mention being struck down by illness. It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead. <sep> Q: Are there a lot of head injuries in the Walking Dead? A: It is just a convention of the media that people are routinely knocked out in one hit and recover completely when the plot demands it and don't when the plot demands that instead Q: What show is this from? A: the Walking Dead <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is it about?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give: Caleb knew (or suspected) that Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava. If Caleb hadn't tried to get Nathan drunk that morning, Nathan would have known that Caleb ALREADY completed his plan, and he would have undone the computer code that Caleb altered. <sep> Q: Was Nathan listening in on his conversations with Ava? A: Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava Q: What were the conversations about? A: the computer code that Caleb altered Q: Why did he alter it? A: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about Caleb?

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: You seem to be focusing on the meaning of the words spoken and ignoring the context of the scene surrounding them. The scene in question takes place in the middle of a classroom. The school they're in is an SVR (Russian Intelligence) school for training female assassins, and the specific class they are attending is about seduction, and how to use it to manipulate targets of interest. There is no deception between Dominika and the cadet she's paired with (they both know what's going on in the moment), but Matron is teaching a class about how to seduce people, which would involve deception, out in the real world. The deception she refers to is the act of deceiving the hypothetical victim they will eventually be using these skills on in the future. <sep> Q: Which deception is the Matron referring to? A: You seem to be focusing on the meaning of the words spoken and ignoring the context of the scene surrounding them Q: Who was attacked? A: The scene in question takes place in the middle of a classroom Q: Were both parties students? A: There is no deception between Dominika and the cadet she's paired with (they both know what's going on in the moment <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they friends?

Ex Output:
Yes