TASK DEFINITION: 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:`.
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  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I noticed she didn't wear a headscarf, does that mean she isn't Muslim?

SOLUTION: She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: I think it's intentionally left ambiguous whether it was an accident or it was done on purpose. Even in the short story that this incident is based on, My old man and the lascivious special award that heralded the birth of pop art, it's never stated outright if breaking the lamp was intentional. Of course, in both the story and the movie the Mother is glad to see it go, and the Old Man accuses her of breaking it on purpose, but I don't think there's a definite answer.  <sep>  Q: Did the Mother break the Leg Lamp? A: in both the story and the movie the Mother is glad to see it go, and the Old Man accuses her of breaking it on purpose, but I don't think there's a definite answer  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she ever like it?

SOLUTION: Mother is glad to see it go

PROBLEM: CONTEXT: By the time of Infinity War, they could not have kept the Infinity Stones in Odin's Vault, because of the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed. The Asgardians wouldn't have kept the Infinity Stones in the Vault before Ragnarok either, because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard. Finally, just as logical assumption, if you have a super-destructive device in six parts, it would make more sense to keep those parts as far away from each other as possible so that it would be more difficult for said weapon to fall in to the wrong hands. If they're all in one place, no matter how secure, that only makes it easier to collect all the parts. This is doubly true since Thanos is literally one of the strongest characters in the MCU at this point. Anyone who would have been powerful enough to stop him either (a) wouldn't care, or (b) have already been killed.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Asgardians aquire the Infinity stones using Heimdall? A: because they knew that a cataclysmic event was coming, even if they didn't know when, so it would logically be safer to keep the stones away from Asgard  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the cataclysmic event?

SOLUTION:
the events in Ragnarok, which, by the end of the movie, left Odin dead and Asgard destroyed