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:`.

Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number).  <sep>  Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her  Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight  Q: Who did Jasmine call about Hal? A: Jasmine calls the FBI  Q: Who did she accuse Hal of sleeping with? A: this French girl 

Ex Output:
Who starred in this movie?


Ex 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 

Ex Output:
What did Charlie take one of?


Ex Input:
CONTEXT: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker. The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane. Lane, should he have gotten free, would've removed the tracker himself but now if he were to be freed he wouldn't know that he still had a tracker on him. This new tracker having been put in place by the IMF and not the Parisian authorities that were holding Lane and trying to get him back from Hunt's team making not only Lane but Walker not realizing that Lane was still being tracked. I also believe they did this in order to set Lane's tracker as visible again and when they set the drone away with Lane's tracker to keep the authorities on a goose chase thinking that Lane was still on the move while Hunt's team escaped with Lane. When they finally set the drone free you can hear helicopters passing by overhead. They drew the authorities closer to the tracker and then set it free instead of them trying to follow them to the sewers.  <sep>  Q: Why did Hunt's team set a 90 seconds limit to take out the tracker from Lane's neck? A: I think that 90 seconds is just the amount of time it takes to take out the tracker  Q: Why did they want to remove the tracker? A: The reason they wanted to remove the tracker was to implant their own tracker into Lane 

Ex Output:

How hard was it remove and implant the new one?