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:`.

Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: As we see in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (during the climactic fight between Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi) and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (when dozens of Jedi storm the arena where Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Padmé Amidala have been sentenced to death), Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them. In fact, we see that Obi-Wan Kenobi is referred to as General Kenobi in Star Wars films set after the events of the Clone Wars, so we can be reasonably sure that there is nothing prohibiting Jedi killing people in battle. However, at the point you are asking about in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Count Dooku is an unarmed opponent and poses little to no further threat. The Jedi way would have been to arrest him, not murder him, as Anakin himself correctly says in the quote in the question.  <sep>  Q: In Star Wars, can a Jedi kill? A: Jedi have no qualms about killing those that are trying to kill them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do jedis often kill their opponent?

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: The neighbor was shouting and pointing his finger towards the old man and that's what infuriated Caesar. He hated that gesture. Sometimes it happens with humans too and it makes us want to catch that finger and twist it hard. (But we don't do that :)) It's a natural emotion that comes to our mind, sometimes. My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger. Hard enough to cause bleeding. One more possibility is that in his anger, he closed his jaws on the finger but when the man started crying in pain he may have controlled himself and let him go. About losing the finger - losing the finger doesn't necessarily mean getting it bitten off. Maybe Caesar chewed it in a manner that it was badly damaged and may be the doctors advice to cut it off later.  <sep>  Q: not sure A: My opinion is that Caesar did not want to bite it off, he just wanted to bite hard on that finger  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: yes, the film shows his finger and it just looks bloody ,not cut off

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: CONTEXT: It's a figure of speech, sometimes when people speak, they refer themselves in third person perspective. Could be various reasons. In some cultures, people usually address themselves in third person perspective because they believe that addressing themselves in first person is not good. This incident is called Illeism (from Latin ille meaning "he, that") which is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of first person. Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device. In real life usage, illeism can reflect a number of different stylistic intentions or involuntary circumstances. In this matter, Sparrow refers herself in third person because she needs to give the herself lofty airs, to puff herself up or illustrate her egoism.  <sep>  Q: Why does Golden Sparrow always use "she" instead of "I" or "My"? A: This incident is called Illeism (from Latin ille meaning "he, that") which is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of first person  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is Golden Sparrows occupation?


Output: No


