Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, answer a follow-up question from the paragraph. 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: The comment prior to the conversation with the astronauts´ wives (in the control center) clearly states that Capricorn 1 is just close enough to Earth to allow the fluent conversation. Only at the most distant point of the mission the conversation gaps reach 21 minutes. Thus, there seems to be no blooper nor plothole. (I am much more worried about the Apollo mission technology used for a journey of at least a year. Could three astronauts just sit in the command module most of the time? I guess even the strongest personalities would have gone mad. There might have been a strong extended/additional stage of a modified Saturn rocket for the outward and return journey. If this stage was equipped with extra rooms, stores etc. it would appear more realistic than what we see in the movie.)  <sep>  Q: How is the fluent conversation with spacecraft possible in Capricorn One? A: The comment prior to the conversation with the astronauts´ wives (in the control center) clearly states that Capricorn 1 is just close enough to Earth to allow the fluent conversation  Q: How close was Capricorn One to earth? A: Only at the most distant point of the mission the conversation gaps reach 21 minutes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would this work in real life as in the movie? Or would it be too far away to communicate with Earth?
Example Output: If this stage was equipped with extra rooms, stores etc. it would appear more realistic than what we see in the movie

Example Input: CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers? A: Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling  Q: Do they have anything to do with making the show? A: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they all the same type of producer?
Example Output: I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers

Example Input: CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment?
Example Output:
I would therefore classify them as Symbiote

