instruction:
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:`.
question:
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why are the newborn babies needed?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: Many reviews are calling this a black comedy or dark comedy, which is comedy that makes light of a serious subject or a comedy with gloomy or disturbing elements. If this film was just a drama, it would be a serious depiction of four girls going on spring break and the tragedy that unfolded when they got mixed up with a gangster. Instead, there are pink ski masks, bikinis in court, lots of sex, references to Britney Spears, the mere existence of a drug dealer named Alien who shows up to bail the girls out of jail... The basic premise is ridiculous, and the way that violence is interspersed with this ridiculousness sets up an uncomfortable edge that seems to keep audiences talking about this movie. Mostly the characters are flat and the story is not that gripping, but the edge that Harmony Korinne keeps the audience on - never knowing which direction it would go - seems to keep viewers engaged, whether they are engrossed or repelled.  <sep>  Q: How exactly is the movie a comedy?
answer:

Yes


