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:`.

[EX Q]: 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  Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him  Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho? A: 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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the sons after being left?
[EX A]: I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team. So most of it is born out of the existing myths out there. Of course, the team goes on to make some stuff of their own. The thing is, Supernatural borrows from myths all over the world. The salt thing and devil's trap are myths that exist. Though I wouldn't worry about the series being credible because they often involve plots that throw you off your screen like the Horsemen, heaven, hell etc etc. Just enjoy the show! :)  <sep>  Q: Is there any credibility to the "details" in Supernatural? A: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What folk lore, legends and myths is it inspired by?
[EX A]: existing myths out there

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so. He's the main character but he's part of the resolution of the plot. It's a judgment call by the Academy, but his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct.  <sep>  Q: Why was Dev Patel nominated for Supporting Actor rather than Best Actor? A: Dev Patel plays the adult Saroo, so he is only in the movie for the last third or so  Q: So he wasn't eligible? A: It's a judgment call by the Academy  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Would he be better suited for a "Supporting Role"?
[EX A]:
his screen time is far less than that of the Best Actor nominees this year, so to call his a supporting role seems correct

