First, decompose the prompt carefully so you see the many levels of complexity that are added (sometimes, quite subtly):
“right or wrong”
These are two contrasting categories. There is no mention of a third, in-the-middle category. That means there must be a “test” (a law, a judge, an expectation, --- a “discriminator” which can conclusively categorize items).
Now, when the “test” is applied and the category is determined a decision is made: is it “right” or “wrong”?. Note that, so far, those are only names of categories. They are given worth, severity, and other meaning by the test itself or by the persons making or else evaluating the test. That is, a law has a penalty, a missed expectation has a consequence, a test may be failed, etc. One very common rationalization is, “It’s o.k. because I didn’t get caught.” or “Failed test is o.k. because it is not graded.”
Now, the concepts of “absolute truth” and “always right or wrong” make this prompt much more difficult. If there are exceptions, how many are there and when may they occur? Of course, any exception means it is not “always possible.”
“Do you believe”
Oh, the prompt only asks for your opinion anyway, so facts are considered “supporting evidence” because, to you, “perception is reality.” At this point, the process of making the argument has become more important than the test, the judge, and any consequences. This is where many people live – “I like it, so I’ll do it.” Only if you believe that you have violated any test, law, expectation, … will your conscience cause you to have any regrets, so regrets are a very weak consideration in your argument. The prompt is asking you whether you have a resilient process for obtaining a conclusive decision, not whether you have actually made a good or bad decision – this is a very important distinction. Note that any experience of failure/regret is not required in order to “believe it is always possible.”
Analyze the prompt carefully. Enumerate the levels of argument involved. Determine the cause and effect of various actions in the process so that you understand your process (determined by your belief) and decide whether it is always conclusive. Only then, argue for clear decisiveness or for ambiguity.