A toy vehicle is not a vehicle though.
If you think a toy vehicle is a vehicle then you should have answered that the toy car violated the rule.
Nope, I think that toy vehicle is a vehicle, but it does not violate the intent of the rule.
But nothing in the game asks about intent.
More generally, I think that this game is about jurisprudence in general, and interpretation of laws in particular. It’s not about mathematics or group theory. If it was framed as “in preparation for your PhD in statistics, you need to count 1 for each instance of ‘vehicle in the park’ group” I would count 1 for toy vehicle in the park. And for many more, too.
The way the game is framed as “interpretation of the law,” it includes the supposed intent of the law.
But the question is not "is this a vehicle in the park," it's "whether or not this situation constitutes 'a vehicle in the park' for the sole purpose of what was the lawmakers' intent when they made a 'no vehicles in the park' rule."
A toy vehicle in the park most definitely is "a vehicle in the park." But prohibiting toys in the park most definitely wasn't the lawmakers' intent.