Use a disfluent question or a proper question and find the answer to the question based on the given context or return None if an answer can't be found. A disfluent question is a question that has some interruptions in it while framing. A proper question is the correct form of the question without any disfluency.

[Q]: proper question: Why did the Navy give a speech in court? 
 disfluent question: How did no make that why did the Navy give a speech in court? 
 context: Some civil disobedience defendants choose to make a defiant speech, or a speech explaining their actions, in allocution. In U.S. v. Burgos-Andujar, a defendant who was involved in a movement to stop military exercises by trespassing on U.S. Navy property argued to the court in allocution that the ones who are violating the greater law are the members of the Navy. As a result, the judge increased her sentence from 40 to 60 days. This action was upheld because, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, her statement suggested a lack of remorse, an attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions, and even a likelihood of repeating her illegal actions. Some of the other allocution speeches given by the protesters complained about mistreatment from government officials.
[A]: None


[Q]: proper question: What was the topic of the error? 
 disfluent question: Who or rather what was the topic of the error? 
 context: Former IPCC chairman Robert Watson has said The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened. Martin Parry, a climate expert who had been co-chair of the IPCC working group II, said that What began with a single unfortunate error over Himalayan glaciers has become a clamour without substance and the IPCC had investigated the other alleged mistakes, which were generally unfounded and also marginal to the assessment.
[A]: Himalayan glaciers


[Q]: proper question: What did Ghandi mention about the right to abolish an unjust government in The Declaration of Independence? 
 disfluent question: What did Howard Zinn, oh sorry, what did Ghandi mention about the right to abolish an unjust government in The Declaration of Independence? 
 context: Non-revolutionary civil disobedience is a simple disobedience of laws on the grounds that they are judged wrong by an individual conscience, or as part of an effort to render certain laws ineffective, to cause their repeal, or to exert pressure to get one's political wishes on some other issue. Revolutionary civil disobedience is more of an active attempt to overthrow a government (or to change cultural traditions, social customs, religious beliefs, etc...revolution doesn't have to be political, i.e. cultural revolution, it simply implies sweeping and widespread change to a section of the social fabric). Gandhi's acts have been described as revolutionary civil disobedience. It has been claimed that the Hungarians under Ferenc Deák directed revolutionary civil disobedience against the Austrian government. Thoreau also wrote of civil disobedience accomplishing peaceable revolution. Howard Zinn, Harvey Wheeler, and others have identified the right espoused in The Declaration of Independence to alter or abolish an unjust government to be a principle of civil disobedience.
[A]:
None