Of the five, four are quantitative. Of those, #1 does not follow jnbiche's pattern; #2, the literacy question, does follow the pattern if you look at the "all respondents" number, but, as you suggest, the numbers are too close; #3 follows the pattern, but there are two answers equidistant from the correct answer, which complicates the analysis; #5 does follow the pattern.

Rosling's discovery, that we do worse than random on tests like these, is fascinating, despite so many people here becoming distracted by the rhetorical device of the chimpanzee. But that only holds if you merely tabulate right and wrong answers. jnbiche is pointing out that there might be a deeper pattern to the data that could make us look better, perhaps almost as good as random.

I wonder how easy it would be to design other surveys that exploited bad preconceptions to get a worse-than-random result. Maybe in other fields, like science.