Perhaps, but player designations generally do not change during the play scenario description. Given that everywhere else in that question and the various answer choices a clear distinction is made between "B1's substitute" and "B1" as being different players, there IS in fact, something wrong with the wording of the question, IMO. The test taker can reasonably conclude that answer a) is incorrect due to the wording, not due to lack of rules knowledge. In fact, the test taker most likely to view choice a) as incorrect is the test taker who thoroughly DOES know the rules. Hence, the wording of the rule is a problem.

Exactly, you can only have one player occupying any single position at any one time.

I think y'all are overthinking the question looking for a booger.

Where did this come from?

Disagree. See my reply above. It is not "looking for a booger"; neither is it "overthinking". It is applying the situation as described, with the answers provided, to the rule as written. It is not unreasonable to assume (and it is not overthinking to assume) that the question is written to make the point of exactly which player is out, B1 or B1's subsititute.

Quite plan, IMO. OP clearly states "unreported substitute for B1 is batting".

The substitute is officially in the game when discovered. That is the first thing that occurs. That means the player originally scheduled to bat is no long in the game. How are you going to rule someone not in the game out?

IMO, the question was provided to force the umpire to look into the rule (4.6.C) and determine which of the 4 possible effects is applied to the given situation.

In my experience taking ASA tests, half the time when there is an ambiguity in a question like this, they want it overthought and half the time they just made a mistake.

How do you rule someone not in the game out? You don't, which is why some would conclude choice a) is incorrect.

They didn't HAVE to state choice a) the way they did, and (as I said, and will repeat here) choice a) is the ONLY place in the entire scenario or answer choices where "B1" apparently means a different player than everywhere else... even choices b) and c) where she has also already been discovered and should (presumably) be referred to as merely "B1." But this is not a test in transitory nomenclature, it is a rules test.

Of course, threads like this treat poorly-written test questions as some kind of huge deal when they are generally merely an annoyance, but this question IS poorly written (or, perhaps as youngump states is intentionally written to trip up the test taker on a purely trivial nomenclature issue, in which case the question writer should be ashamed of themselves).

It is not incorrect. B1 is, by rule, the player officially in the game. I know this because the rule clearly states this to be true. The first sentence covers this in each scenario listed in the rule concerning unreported substitutes

Again, and I obviously cannot say this enough, the unreported substitute IS B1. The OP states "unreported substitute for B1 is batting". BY RULE, the unreported sub is in the game and now is considered B1.

This is not a NFHS test. For year, ASA's premise is to get the umpires' collective noses into the book and to think, not to try and make them fail.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the wording of this question. I understood it last year, I understand it this year and I would have understood it a decade ago even though the answer would have been different :)

OUCH !

Yes, the answer is straight forward to those well versed in discussions of the rules and some related basics; but not necessarily full of clarity as written.

And yes, I have to work on unreported sub rules between books.

You're not getting my point at all, or are so wrapped up in defending the technical correctness of it (did you write this question?) that you are ignoring my point. The question writer clearly makes a distinction between "B1" and "B1's substitute" everywhere except in answer a). Everywhere. Even when "B1" could have been used.

I don't take the ASA test, so there I have no skin in this game. It is sloppily written. That is all.

And my point is that you are not taking the rule into consideration when reading the scenario's answers.

A is the only answer which includes the correct progression of rule's effect of officially entering the US into the game as B1. That player must be entered into the game to be declared out. At that point, the previously US is, in fact, B1.

And no, I didn't write it :)

If B1 and B1's substitute are both wearing number 1 don't we have a violation of 3-6-D. :-)

I appreciate the idea that you're trying to tell Tom that B1's substitute became B1. But I don't think there is any formal nomenclature where B1 is the first batter in the lineup. It's just a test taking and play describing shorthand. In other sports with similar schemas they generally refer to the substitutes with a different number.

B1 is a simple position indicator, nothing more.