If psychology were to be an exact, or to use mill's phrase, "a perfect" science, then specific human acts could be accurately predicted. would a prediction be accurate if the person about to act becomes aware of the prediction prior to the act itself? does the fact that a prediction can be known in advance disprove the possibility of predicting accurately or is that fact just one more antecedent condition? thoroughly explain your view.

Would a prediction be accurate if the person about to act becomes aware of the prediction prior to the act itself?

This is a classic problem of the deterministic approach to action. If psychology was perfect, it is likely that this would enable psychologists to predict how a person is going to act in any situation. It would also make psychologists able to predict when this act would take place. However, for such a prediction to be useful, the psychologist would have to keep this information from the subject. Otherwise, the knowledge of the prediction could potentially make the person act in a different way, rendering the prediction obsolete.

Does the fact that a prediction can be known in advance disprove the possibility of predicting accurately or is that fact just one more antecedent condition?

The fact that a prediction can be known in advance does disprove the possibility of predicting accurately. The moment a prediction is made, the prediction alters the state of the components that were necessary to know in order to make a prediction. Therefore, the prediction becomes obsolete as the action might or might not happen in the way that was previously predicted.

i would say the correct answer is not concrete.

i guess you are missing the idea that has to be supported, am i right?