instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. 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:'.
question:
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 Q: I noticed she didn't wear a headscarf, does that mean she isn't Muslim? A: She was shown as orphan, it may be possilbe she never knew what religion her parents belonged to <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Well there is a romance between Jamal and Latika, are Muslim men only permitted to marry Abrahamic women?
answer:
Yes

question:
CONTEXT: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever. An alternate (possibly revisionist) version of a movie cannot detract from the original viewing experience, it can only add an additional positive (or negative) experience. In the case of Ridley and Blade Runner, I have every version, and his "Final Cut" is my favorite, and I am pleased-giddy that he was able to get yet another version released. It is my opinion that, given 4+ versions, you have the luxury of choosing the one you enjoy most. You have nothing but upside! Any downside is for pessimists, or people who have undue hatred for capitalist who play their little games while we are still free to play ours. In the case of his refusal to agree to a Director's Cut of Prometheus that is cool too. I enjoy the fact that as an artist Ridley Scott wraps his arms fully around the meta concept of additional releases, and indeed incorporates that into the overall art like Claude Monet's Water Lilies, or Haystacks as long as HE is making the decisions. (You might argue the opposite for 99% of all other director/studio combos.) <sep> Q: Does Ridley Scott's Director's Cut releases hurt his movies? A: To a strong movie fan, no, it cannot hurt - ever <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it common to do a director's cut?
answer:
No

question:
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents. <sep> Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien?
answer:
Yes