Getting hung up over the specificity of the hobbies and interests and the likelihood of those hobbies and interests representing either or a lawyer or an engineer is irrelevant, because the only factual data that was provided by the questioner is that 30% of the participants were engineers, and 70% were lawyers.
What this article is trying to present is heuristic errors - like question 1, where ignoring of the fact that sample size is relevant gets you to the wrong answer. Ignoring the likelihood that there is a correlation between personal interests and career choice seems to me to be the equivalent heuristic error for this question.
Let me give you an alternate example. There are roughly 700 million Europeans and roughly 300 million Americans. If I randomly picked one person out from this, gave you no other information and asked you where they came from, you'd have a 70% chance of guessing correctly by saying "Europe". If I told you that their first language was English, that they loved American football and baseball and hated soccer, and that their favourite TV show was Conan, and then asked you to guess where they came from, it would be hugely naive to ignore that information and still assume that they were probably European. Yes, it's entirely possible that there are Europeans who fall into all of those things, and I've not done a survey to find the exact percentage of each group that answer this description, but I'd be prepared to put a fair amount of money on the fact that there's a larger overall number of Americans who answer it than Europeans, so the smart guess would now be that they are American.
The more I see this trend, the more stubbornly I find myself clinging to "What I know"
Assuming that there is a skew of preferences, then this info isn't irrelevant you can perfectly reasonably use this to help identify the likelihood of this person being in one group or another. It doesn't guarantee that you're right, but it will improve your chances.