Is the following approach correct?
Since $A$ is a open subset (finite) of the metric space $M$, we can use the following theorem(s) which states:
Theorem I. A subset of a metric space is open i.f.f it contains, along with any point $x$, some neighborhood of $x$
Theorem II. A subset of a metric space is open i.f.f it is expressible as a union of open balls.
Therefore, since we already have the information that $A$ is a open subset, it can be
I. Expressible as a union of open balls [not assumed to be disjoint]
II. Every point $x$ in $A$ has a neighborhood.
''Definition'' picked from WIKIPEDIA In mathematics, a point $x$ is called an isolated point of a subset $S$ (in a topological space $X$) if $x$ is an element of $S$ but there exists a neighborhood of $x$ which does not contain any other points of $S$.
"Therefore, every $x$ in A is an isolated point of $M$ since every $x$ according to above has a neighborhood (balls)..." [not conclusive enough]
From here, I do struggle a bit concluding.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
You can write in a simpler way :
Let $p \in A$. Because $A$ is finite, $A \setminus \lbrace p \rbrace$ is finite so it's closed in $M$. So $M \setminus \left( A \setminus \lbrace p \rbrace \right)$ is open. Now note that $$\lbrace p \rbrace = A \cap \left( M \setminus \left( A \setminus \lbrace p \rbrace \right) \right)$$
is the intersection of two open sets, so it is open. So $p$ is isolated in $M$.