I'll create my own scenario that I noticed from browsing websites: A Father leaves food sitting out in the kitchen and walks away to see if his child, once he walks into the kitchen, will eagerly eat it.
The child still could have went to his father first out of courtesy, but he didn't, and his father knew that he wouldn't. What the father knew, however, did not deny that the child had a decision in that instant. His father just has an intimate understanding of his child. In this scenario, choice and foreknowledge co-exists.
Then we may interject by saying that Dad rigged the situation. But then we would be talking about two different things. To rig something is to deny a choice (like a slot machine that only triggers a win every 500 turns); denying the ability to take an alternative. However, that ability (choice) was still undeniably present with the child.