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 Q]: CONTEXT: As in the English language, names used to describe a person or a group of persons have mutated into their last name, similar to those whose last name is a profession. In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country, and so far it hasn't spread much around the country. If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country. So, being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens, they pick one they could relate to. <sep> Q: Explanation of "Lucumi"? A: In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country
[EX A]: Any other explanations?

[EX Q]: 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 A]: What did Charlie take one of?

[EX Q]: CONTEXT: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill or where Bill wants it to go, be it because of his animosity towards Bill, his battle weariness, surrendering his fate to Beatrix, or a combination of these motivations which are all supported by the rest of the dialogue. Saying that he pawned his Hanzo sword seems like the easiest option to end the conversation and indeed it ends shortly afterwards. Had Budd said that he still had the sword, this would have given Bill leverage to make (or try to make) Budd join his cause. Had Budd said that he sold the sword for an appropriate price, this would obviously contradict Budd's apparent financial situation. <sep> Q: Why did Budd lie about him having his sword? A: I do not have an authoritative answer, but my impression is this: Budd is not particularly enthused about the entire conversation with Bill
[EX A]:
Why does Beatrix deserve to die?