Well, with your food question, the difference is that there's really no good way to answer "do you like Chinese?" without some more context. Chinese food? Chinese people? Chinese language? I need that info in order to answer, and the question did not provide the info in any clear manner, and I am forced to guess. So in that case, I'll go ahead and take the context from the other options, while mentally cursing the question author for being unable to form a better question.

I would have little confidence in this answer, because at this point I don't trust the question author to be competent. (No offense to you of course; this is hypothetical.) I'm just making my best guess.
In contrast, for the practice exam question, option D is clear enough already. It has a definite answer (false) based on the information provided. I don't need to import context from other answers - good, because that's a very questionable thing to have to do. Now, it turns out that in this case, the author did not intend the question in the way I interpreted it. (Based on the given answer, A and D.) So OK, now I would say that the author is simply wrong, and evidently this practice exam did not go through rigorous screening from Sun. The difference is that for the Chinese question, the incompetence of the author was evident immediately (since it was obvious more info was needed) while for the practice exam question, the author's incompetence was better hidden.
OK, "incompetence" is a little harsh for both authors; call it carelessness. Either way, the question was broken. I prefer to assume a question means exactly what it says, unless and until I see evidence that the question
can't be interpreted that way. Now if I detect that a question is broken, I may be able to make a good guess as to what the author
really meant. In this case, an obviously broken question (like "do you like Chinese?") is better than a subtly broken question (like option D). Still, if I don't see any obvious signs a question is broken, I prefer to assume the author knows what they're doing, rather than worry over all the possible ways the author might have subtly screwed it up.