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: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet. However, in the novel Jack's father is Old Nick - the man who was holding Ma and Jack captive. Ma's father would not look at Jack because doing so would make the father think of Old Nick - thus leading to anger, etc at the the kidnapping of his daughter.  <sep>  Q: In the film Room, why was the Grandfather Unable to Look at Grandson? A: I will preface this by saying that I haven't seen the film yet  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DId the grandfather make eye contact with the son?
A:
Yes