Liked this to start with but the more I read the less I liked it.
Why? Well, I think it has a major problem, one which becomes more evident the more you read the book, and the more you think about what you're reading: the examples are all made up. Both the questions AND the answers - and that's important to note. Because once you've realised that you can see what they're doing, inventing questions that would NEVER actually be asked on an exam paper, just so they can put a 'funny' answer, you see the light. And when you realise this, the 'punchline' is revealed to be pretty lame. 'Name Labour's first cabinet minister' is one. Eh? How could there be a proper answer to this? There isn't, it's just the excuse for the retort 'Mr Chippendale'. Or 'Why did Britons have better health after the year 1990?'. Did they? I'm not sure they did, but it leads to the 'child's' answer of 'the eighties were over'.
Also, sometimes the answers simply do not sound like answers youngsters would give, making it seem falser still.
When something like this doesn't ring true it completely falls apart - the humour DEPENDS on it being genuine. That's why Private Eye cuttings books work, because you can see that they really were originally done. Here I suspect that they get someone to imitate around a dozen different styles of children's handwriting and make their book - and there's no way that their spelling would ever be as fault-free as this!
But what do I know, it's sold loads.