Not at all. It's a test to discern journalistic integrity of the writer/publication; not whether or not the headline is true/false.
Fake news uses loaded (emotionally charged) words and tends to assert its conclusions as though they are irrefutable facts; placing its own biases front and center. Real journalism is more like real science, in that it uses more matter-of-fact wording and avoids broad or concrete assertions beyond the scope of the underlying information — as no amount of observation or evidence can ever achieve a 100% certainty of fact or remove all possibility of bias.
Your comment indicates you do not understand the difference between the two.
Gut instinct based on tone is a useful heuristic, but for a "comprehensive test" of whether you can "beat misinformation" I feel there should be at the very least some examples where it's not made obvious in that way, and ideally even an example that intentionally subverts that expectation by giving a headline that sounds crazy/conspiracy-theorist but is actually true.
Fake news uses loaded (emotionally charged) words and tends to assert its conclusions as though they are irrefutable facts; placing its own biases front and center. Real journalism is more like real science, in that it uses more matter-of-fact wording and avoids broad or concrete assertions beyond the scope of the underlying information — as no amount of observation or evidence can ever achieve a 100% certainty of fact or remove all possibility of bias.
Your comment indicates you do not understand the difference between the two.