Well, in arithmetics section, when talking about "calculating interest" [or discount] they omitted to mention the method of compounding [probably straigth linear in the course of the year, but still open to question]; when figuring capacity of a wagon [how much it could hold], they did not specify whether it was open top with a possibility of a pyramidal-like topping, and if yes, then what would be the angle to which one could pile the pyramid; in cost of boards per metre question they omitted - did they mean a metre of length, or one of surface [square metre]? Thus that section was formulated rather sloppily. Having English as my second language, I will pass the language section over in silence.
I'm sure much of that was understood. While it appears sloppy to us because we were taught differently, it was likely to be done as the examples in class were done so the exam didn't need to specify.
BTW, I expect they has memorized all the conversion factors and they had no calculators. Rods and bushels are out of my realm of experience.
Are you familar with the common criticism implying that our grandparents were uneducated because *they only had an eighth grade education*? It's often used in a disaraging way implying that they didn't really have a clue about what was going on because all they got to was eigth grade, making them barely literate. I mean, if they are comparing it to an eighth grade education of TODAY, yes, it would be an insult. In those days, they really educated kids and what they knew by 8th, I doubt most twelfth graders today could even touch.
Interesting thing is, the Mennonites still teach much along those lines. I've seen and used some of their curriculum and it is way more advanced than what you get out of the public high schools.