<ol>
<li><p>Many times a question is based on a false premise, or indeed several of them (a common example is a question about transforming to normality something that is not ever assumed to be normal - like the predictor variables in a linear regression model). </p>

<p>In that case I think a perfectly reasonable response is to post an answer that corrects the erroneous idea on which the question is based -- but ideally one that offers some kind of path forward for the OP. This may require some steps of clarification of the issue the original poster is working with.</p></li>
<li><p>These are often questions with what is sometimes called the <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem">XY problem</a> (also see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">wikipedia</a>).</p>

<p>This happens when a user asks about an issue with their attempted (but often naive) solution to their original, underlying problem (typically not even mentioned in the question).</p>

<p>For that reason it's often important to try to tease out what prompted the question, and either get the question edited in a way that relates to the real problem, or - where there's value in having an answer to the original question (e.g. because it's a common error that for some reason hasn't already been adequately dealt with on site) - to explain the mistaken premise but encourage the OP to ask a new question relating to the original problem.</p></li>
</ol>
