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:'.

Example Input: CONTEXT: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system. First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting. Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results. <sep> Q: Why the confusion over who was arrested in Criminal Minds? A: I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system Q: Which is the more significant? A: First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting
Example Output: Is this an aspect of the US justice system I don't know?

Example 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
Example Output: What did Charlie take one of?

Example Input: CONTEXT: SHIELD have been holding the Tesseract for a very long time since Howard Stark found it not long after Captain America went missing (close to World War 2). They have been studying its properties ever since. Also, Loki knows some of its power and secrets from Thanos as explained in the movie. Connect that with the slight influence Loki has over Selvig in credits scene for Thor. So Selvig probably has some breakthroughs in that research, maybe because of his own intellect and maybe because of Loki. The conclusion Hawkeye makes that "doors open from both sides" is just a guess, which is soon proven correct. But Hawkeye and Fury and Selvig are all in the same room a whole lot before this moment, studying the same thing basically. So it's safe to assume they all share any knowledge about that, at least in principle even though Selvig probably more deeply. <sep> Q: How does everyone know so much about the Tesseract? A: Loki knows some of its power and secrets from Thanos as explained in the movie Q: How do all of the Avengers know about the 'powers' of the tesseract? A: Hawkeye and Fury and Selvig are all in the same room a whole lot before this moment, studying the same thing basically. So it's safe to assume they all share any knowledge
Example Output:
What exactly can the Tesseract do?