The test writers need to get with the interp writers:

SITUATION 11: Team A is awarded an alternating-possession throw-in. After A1 releases the ball, B1 commits a kicking violation. RULING: A1’s throw-in has ended because of B1’s kicking violation. A new throw-in is awarded to Team A at the spot out-of-bounds nearest to where the kicking violation occurred. NOTE: Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched.

Yep!! That is the one I missed then, I marked true.

If that is False, 6-4-5 says otherwise to me.

So.....what is the answer? Ha!

I'd go with the interp rather than the test question.

But, here's the deal. The new rule has left out the word legally, so it seems that with the new rule language, and the test question, maybe they overlooked the case play, and actually did intend it to be the way the question is asking.

Right. We discussed this extensively when the rule books came out. Then the interps came out last week (?). So, I would go with the interp as being the most recent (and correct) ruling on this play.

Look at it like this. According to the new language in 4-42-5-a, "the throw in ends when the ball touches or is touched by another player inbounds". When the thrown ball is kicked(touched), the arrow will change to B. Because that touching(the kicking), is a violation Team A gets a throw in for that violation, however since the word legally has been removed, the arrow should be switched at the time of the touching(the kick) by B. So the arrow will stay with B. The above situation actually says that, it just doesn't say who has the arrow.

I've honestly never actually had this play, so while it could certainly happen to me 5 times this season (that was how I got introduced to the held ball on a jump ball a few years ago), I'm not going to sweat this too much.
Like Bob, I'll go with the interpretation issued this year rather than a test question. Test questions don't really have authority, and they are often incorrect.

???
"Because the defensive team committed a violation during the alternating-possession throwin, the alternating-possession arrow is not switched."

When the rule had the word legally in it, I would agree. Maybe the powers that be, don't realize that the case play and rule are different. Who knows!!! Probably be 2 years before it is clarified.

Don't hold your breath, I'm still waiting for the to fix the team control fiasco.

This is not, according to 6-4-5, correct. Though the word "legally" has been removed from 4-42-5a, all the provisions stated in 6-4-5 are still valid:
"The opportunity to make an AP throw-in is lost if the throw-in team violates. If either team fouls during an AP throw-in, it does not cause the throw-in team to lose the possession arrow. If the defensive team commits a violation during the throw-in, the possession arrow is not switched.

Therefore, the removal of the word "legally" in 4-42-5a is a moot point because of what it says in 6-4-5. Right?

I think it was an arguable point either way, until the interpretations were released.

So does the interp say to not switch it?

Yep