You answer the concern inside it, not just the question on its surface. Homeowners constantly ask their objections: “how long have you guys been around?” is trust asking; “what happens if something goes wrong?” is risk asking; “how many of these have you done on this street?” is proof asking. A bare factual answer satisfies the sentence and starves the concern — which returns later, wearing an objection's proper clothes.
The short answer
Discovery taught the same lesson from the other side: concerns often arrive disguised as questions, and the listening inventory flags their questions as signals for exactly this reason. The tell is weight — a question asked with unusual specificity, repetition, or edge is rarely idle. “And who exactly would be doing the work?” from a homeowner whose last crew was a disaster is not a logistics inquiry; it's the scar checking whether this story ends differently.
How it runs
The handling mirrors the porcupine discipline: return the question once to find the concern — happy to answer that; so I point you at the right thing, what's behind the question for you? — then answer the fact completely AND the concern it carried. Skipping the return gets you a technically-answered homeowner whose actual worry never entered the record; skipping the eventual answer makes you evasive. Both halves, in that order, and the question-objection dissolves into the concern it always was — handled in discovery conditions instead of at the close.
Go deeper
Spar's rounds and the 33-objection library grade your framework under pressure — Round 1 is free; the full camp is $29/month. Spar before you knock.