Just because a question isn't good for the website's format doesn't mean the asker doesn't deserve an answer if one can be squeezed in before the question is closed IMO. What is the general opinion of this situation?
In the case that it's a question that you can answer, but the question is not suitable for the site, I'd advise inviting the asker into a chat room where you can help them. This way the wrong behaviour isn't rewarded, but the asker gets help anyway, and learns where to go in future if they have off-topic queries.
I can see both sides of the argument. We exist to try to help people, and we're not doing that if we're not answering their questions. On the other side, we also want to help the site grow, and the best way to do that is to encourage quality contributions from all of its participants.
If you answer a question that should clearly be closed, you're rewarding the wrong kind of behavior on the site. You're not going to get in trouble for it, and I think I've even done it once or twice, but overall I think that it might be better to just cast a close vote without an answer.
People come to SE to ask questions. They come back because they got a good answer. They learn how to ask good questions because they were encouraged to when they asked.
As others have pointed out though, bad questions are supposed to be discouraged. At best, they pollute the SE with bad questions, and at worst they encourage askers to ask more bad questions when they get an answer.
Therefore, I would encourage you to not answer a question you vote to close, but to also recommend that they read the FAQ and explain why you're voting to close, especially for a 1-rep user who may not even be aware of the FAQ.
A bad user who is shown how to be good can eventually become a good user. But a bad user who is turned away from the site is gone (and bad) forever.