I used the examples on page 249 to "give a reasonable interpretation". Is that what they want?
I think what they want is something like this...
1/2 should be the multiplicative inverse of 2. In mod 7, the mult. inverse of 2 is 4 (4*2 = 2*4 = 8 mod 7 = 1). So 1/2 mod 7 could be interpreted as 4. Similar logic for the others.
