The point is it's an attempt to sucker people into a fight over ambiguity over the natural readings of what looks like informal English (which can vary from person to person) vs formal logic statements predicated on a strict framework which may sound weird but actually have right answers. And it works every damn time.

It might be a math Olympiad question, but a math Olympiad participant is supposed to know how, say, a vacuous truth works, and, moreover the mapping of formal English to logical operators (see also: the inclusive or) and that is not how everyone in the world will parse the statement of the problem.

Is the point here to educate people on a quirk of formal logic, or is a smugbait to promote a book? Oh look, there's a book. Quelle surprise.