It seems to me that, regardless of the formalities of the regulations, making a sensible go/no go decision on the basis of the available weather information is part of the qualifying cross country test.
So flying to somewhere you can't land might (one doesn't know the details of the particular case so this is a general comment) sound like a failure to do that, and hence quite reasonably a failure of the entire test.
A student who finds him/herself in this situation might reflect that on this occasion failing to get/interpret/make good judgements on correct weather information cost them some money; on a future occasion they might be less lucky.