What finally made select-all-that-apply decisions feel less random?

The most useful starting point is treating every option as an independent claim supported or contradicted by the stem. If that is not clear, slow down before comparing the answer choices.

I would keep the practice narrow: sort each option into supported, contradicted, or insufficient information. That gives you something observable to review after the set.

A common trap is selecting an option because it sounds generally clinical rather than because the case supports it. Naming that pattern before practice can make it easier to catch in the moment.

Try explaining the decision out loud in one sentence. The explanation should connect directly to treating every option as an independent claim supported or contradicted by the stem.

I would bring this to RN review with one example where the framework worked and one where it still felt ambiguous.