It depends upon how the test is defined and administered. At this point I'm ready to take my chances.
If you don't trust the average voter to make the right decisions, then what the hell makes you think you can trust politicians and bureaucrats any further? Apart from a seething contempt for the great unwashed, that is.
As for the property requirement, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement that you had to meet something like one of the following four requirements: (1) net worth, including a business, property, stocks, bonds & cash, over a given value, (2) educational level of at least an Associate Bachelor's degree (or maybe even a Bachelor's degree), (3) honorable service for some minimum amount of time in a military or civilian service (Go Ron Rico) or (4) take and pass the National Voting Rights Examination.
Why the fuck should one's ability to vote be dependent on one's net worth? You realise that would actually be a step backwards in terms of the democratic franchise? It's not like the landowners and slave-holders of the early bourgeois democracies actually made objectively better decisions (certainly not the from the viewpoint of the tenants and slaves they oppressed and extracted surplus value from), like all voters they cast their ballots in the direction of their perceived self-interests.
Education is also a stupid standard. So people should be disenfranchised because they couldn't afford to go to university? Actually, such people would effectively be disenfranchised twice under your proposed system; first for not having enough money, and then again for not being able to afford tertiary education.
Servitude to a government that one might have serious political disagreements with right from the start is also a non-starter if you apply actual thought to the matter. Political dissidents will either be put off from serving and thus be disenfranchised, or their term of service will influence their political views so hey why bother with the pretence of being a democracy?
Who will set the standards for this "National Voting Rights Examination" of yours? By the way, it's not a right if you have to pass an exam to do it.
None of which would have actually prevented anyone voting for Trump, which is the real reason that you're coming out with these anti-democratic proposals which in practice would produce a new grade of second-class citizens.
When the most dangerous weapon in the world was a fucking rifle perhaps we could afford to let every ignorant, uneducated jackass vote. But with nuclear weapons, I'd prefer requirements that would hopefully give us a more informed and knowledgeable electorate.
If "a more informed and knowledgeable electorate" is what you actually want (rather than just an electorate that votes the way that you would prefer), then what you need is a non-shitty education system and a media that isn't beholden to the interests of big capital.
I've honestly found it quite disturbing how many liberals have become so eager to pare back democracy in the wake of Trump's election victory. Especially since poorer Trump voters will actually have been voting against their own best interests, and for that it seems they deserve the punishment of being permanently disenfranchised. Also, Trump won because of the anti-democratic Electoral College system. So the solution is to cut back American democracy even further, because that is sure to prevent another Trump winning, right?