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: Because this is the most natural and comfortable way of reading a vertical list of credits. While the major credited actors/film crew can enjoy fancy transforms on their listings, it would become exhausting to see the names of rest of the bazillion film crew members to be similarly displayed. Horizontal scrolling won't really work because someone's name/role will invariably scroll off one side before you have a chance to read it (especially when there's a full screen-full of names). Generally, producers want you to see the full list as quickly as reasonably possible (especially as all of these people worked hard for you to enjoy that movie). <sep> Q: Why do movie credits scroll from the bottom to the top of the screen? A: Because this is the most natural and comfortable way of reading a vertical list of credits Q: Couldn't they be scrolled from left to right? A: Horizontal scrolling won't really work because someone's name/role will invariably scroll off one side before you have a chance to read it (especially when there's a full screen-full of names <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think before computers the screen was done manually or by machine?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: This is not really explicitly explained in the film (it's only briefly mentioned), but implicitly: Anton Ego is a famous critic known for scathing reviews and an extremely finicky taste. When Linguini holds a press conference, Ego arrives and announces in front of the reporters that he'll be reviewing Linguini's restaurant - so this review is highly publicized and anticipated. Then, surprisingly, not only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats. So it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder. [Also bear in mind that his experience with Remy was a real eye-opener and changed his beliefs. Since the film doesn't specify when Ego lost his job and reputation, it's possible he continued to write reviews that were significantly mellower (since he now also believed in Chef Gusteau's notion that 'anyone can cook'), and that his fanbase was disappointed and simply stopped reading them.] <sep> Q: What was the reason Anton Ego lost his job? A: he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France. And soon after the review is published, it turns out that the kitchen was infested with rats Q: I thought he didn't mention rats in his review? A: ot only is his review not scathing, but he also calls the restaurant's chef the finest chef in France Q: Why did Anton lose his reputation if he didn't mention anything about rats? A: it would appear that Ego clearly dropped the ball, and if the publication he works for is as finicky as him, it's not that far-fetched that he'll be fired over such a well-publicized blunder <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does Ratatouille mean?
Example Output: No

Example Input: CONTEXT: A) They can't think of any other answers, so they don't want to lose any points they might earn in a steal by the other team. AND/OR B) They think it will be easier to steal the points from the other team than to get all of the points themselves. <sep> Q: When would a team pass on Family Feud? A: They can't think of any other answers <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are there disadvantages?
Example Output:
No