1) is something that I abhor because it allows the interviewer to assume very little of the responsibility for communication, which is an exercise for both people to come to a consensus of what the task is at hand. Instead of saying "did I communicate this effectively", it's saying "it's the listener's fault for not understanding me."
2) is very similar to 1) in that it also absolves the interviewer of any responsibility for communicate. It's also an absurd proposition because it's saying it is the interviewee's job to keep me, the interviewer, entertained. This is absurd because the purpose of interviews is to vet a candidate, if that's not the purpose, then the interviewer should make it more clear that an hour's worth of a jester's time is being requested.
3) is specifying a criteria that might make sense for recent college graduates or if the candidate knows what to prepare for. In my experience, no such guidance is typically given, the most I've seen is "prepare for questions that might be relevant to the role/job posting." The interviewer fails to consider does he/she have a full time job? Did the interviewer actually provide materials for he/she to study? If the questions the OP cited were not actually provided, how do they know to prepare for those types of questions.