Given a paragraph about movies, and a set of conversational question answers about the paragraph, generate a relevant question to the topic of the paragraph. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`.

Example Input: CONTEXT: The movie is an adaptation of Peter Shaffer's play of the same name, which suffers from the same criticism of historical accuracy. I can't find any references to hand, but I imagine that Shaffer was using the historical setting to stage a story of artistic genius and professional rivalry that makes such a good story, and that accuracy was somewhat secondary. It is true that Salieri and Mozart were professional rivals, and that Mozart fairly obviously was the more successful - but it is also clear that their rivalry did not descend into hatred nor that Salieri had any part in Mozart's death, despite rumors. On a positive front the movie makes it very clear that Salieri admires and respects Mozart's abilities, and you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills.  <sep>  Q: Why is the Salieri-Mozart relationship projected falsely in the movie Amadeus? A: you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills 
Example Output: So, are you saying it wasn't based on factual events?

Example Input: CONTEXT: The money belonged to Barr so it had his fingerprints on it. The gun was also Barr's as was the van. The whole point of Charlie's actions were to frame Barr for the killing. He had befriended Barr to get close to him and was close enough to be able to drug him and take the various pieces of property away from Barr's house and to return them with incriminating evidence without Barr realising he'd been set up. If I remember correctly the movie shows a jar filled with coins on Barr's desk. Presumably Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence in the multi-story car park.  <sep>  Q: How did Charlie get Barr Finger prints? A: Charlie just took one of these to leave that final piece of incriminating evidence 
Example Output: What did Charlie take one of?

Example Input: CONTEXT: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain. We see hundreds of kids in the compound in the scorch trials. Killing a few kids isn't a problem. Not that we know they died. The kids the Grievers kill are never shown dying on screen. They could just as easily be non mortally wounded and captured. Since it happens off scene we can't tell.  <sep>  Q: Why would WCKD use Grievers? A: Unlike the books, the movie Gladers are numerous. Enough that WCKD can use them as cattle, as human donors and suck the enzyme out of their brain 
Example Output:
Do the kids escape the maze?