TASK DEFINITION: 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:`.
PROBLEM: CONTEXT: It is not clear anywhere in movie to what religion she belonged. She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to. As far as her name Latika is concerned, it is used by both muslims and hindus. It seems the director didn't want to show her as associated with any religion. If you look at her life, most of the time she was in kind of house arrest, so she herself may not have had time to decide what religion she wants. Regarding the logic that Muslim men are allowed to marry only muslim women, the society they belonged, I don't think rules are applied on them from any religous community. As Ankit pointed out in his answer, inter-religion marriage is not an alien concept, so she may be muslim or not.  <sep>  Q: Is Latika from "Slumdog Millionaire" Muslim? A: It is not clear anywhere in movie to what religion she belonged  Q: I noticed she didn't wear a headscarf, does that mean she isn't Muslim? A: She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Well there is a romance between Jamal and Latika, are Muslim men only permitted to marry Abrahamic women?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I don't think it had any plot driven change. The Bond franchise was feeling threatened by newer spy movies (such as the Bourne series) which have more action, (slightly) more plausible plots (compared to ray-gun satellites etc), and have less comedic elements. A reboot with a new younger actor and a deliberate step away from some of the conventions of the franchise (gadgets & moneypenny for example) were their answer. They tried to take it this direction before - a Licence to Kill was a deliberate attempt with a drug-smuggling and revenge plot-line, but wasn't well done. They then decided to switch back to more 'classic' Bond approaches with Brosnan.  <sep>  Q: Why is James Bond less tech savvy in the Daniel Craig movies?

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  Q: What else can you tell me about this? A: If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to  Q: Why wouldn't they go along with it? A: He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ahh. so he lied to them to get them on his side?

SOLUTION:
Yes