The exact “semantic trick” that they played is called amphiboly. To quote from the cite, The Atheism Web: Logic & Fallacies
The test’s hit says
But the question the so-called hit references doesn’t say anything about “literally”. It says simply
Thus, the author(s) misdirected like a street magician.
How they would have phrased the question had they been honest is as follows:
“Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do literally anything, including things that aren’t things at all.”
That would have shown it to be the jabberwocky that it is, so it’s not surprising that they didn’t ask it that way. And besides, “power” is an amphibolous word. Talk about ambiguous.