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:'.

Example Input: CONTEXT: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch. He's definitely not (at least from Michael's point of view) an employee of the Scranton branch, so Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy. Toby's role as a HR employee would primarily be protecting Dunder Mifflin from Michael's stupidity. Michael Scott is, by design, an absolute idiot of a character. He's totally incompetent as a manager and also has absolutely no understanding of what is and isn't appropriate for the workplace, especially when occupying a managerial position. Toby would be the one who calls him up on his inappropriate conduct, reports that conduct back to corporate, and who would be responsible for telling Michael "no" before he does things that he shouldn't. Children will occasionally tell their parents that they hate them (or at least don't love them) when they've been denied something they want or have been told off for doing something they shouldn't. Michael's essentially having a childish - and ongoing - reaction against the authority figure who denies him the things he wants. The impression I got was that the other employees didn't have any particularly strong feelings about Toby either way. They didn't exactly dislike him but they didn't consider him a friend either. <sep> Q: Can you talk to me about the US version of the Office? A: Michael hated Toby because he worked in Human Resources. He's essentially a corporate employee that's permanently based at the Scranton branch <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Michael was jealous that he had a corporate position or just upset that he had authority over him in some small way?
Example Output: Michael sort of views him as a combination of invader, traitor and spy

Example Input: CONTEXT: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell. You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell. In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up. In S4E5 "Travelers" at about the 26 minute mark, you see Shepard ask Larrin if she has more "of these," referring to either the weapon, or the power cell he removes from the depleted gun. They are both weaponless because the gun is out of power. The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though. Probably for the same reason they never show the SG teams loading ammo into magazines. :) <sep> Q: Why doesn't Ronon's gun run out of power? A: It's a replaceable - some say rechargeable - power cell Q: How does he recharge this power cell gun? A: You can see a spare on Ronon's belt in many shots, but there is as far as I can recall only one time you see him actually replace the power cell Q: When does he do this exactly, I can't recall seeing him recharge it? A: In the tavern scene near the beginning of S2E7 "Instinct," he replaces the cell near the end of the conversation, just before he stands up <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this the only time he is seen recharging the gun?
Example Output: The show never actually shows how he replaces/recharges the cells, though

Example Input: CONTEXT: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show. Also, the name 'Game of Thrones' gives more information about what will happen in the TV series (politics and fight for the throne) than the name A song of ice and fire does. Game of Thrones is still a very suitable title, yes it is the title of the first book but the entire span of the series covers the game being played for the Iron Throne. A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person. Note also that the phrase is used in the other books and is perhaps even better than the series title at describing in one phrase the whole point of the books. <sep> Q: Why is the TV show titled "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire?" A: A Song of Ice and Fire really sounds quite fantasy-ish, whereas Game of Thrones sounds medieval and more suitable for a show Q: True, but the book series is called "A Song of Ice and Fire" don't you think that would attract more people who were fans of the book? A: he phrase is used in the other books <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: "Game of Thrones" is just the name of the first book, won't fans think show is about only that book instead of the whole series?
Example Output:
A Song of Ice and Fire is sophisticated and poetic, but Game of Thrones is direct and exciting and very easily remembered. And that's what counts for the average person