Negative answering utility...towards diseconomy of scope

Only when you take the average marks per paper that you have lost due to silly mistakes and compare the number with the total marks that you have ever lost because you do what you do, you will realise that there is a distinctive difference between Average Cost and Total Cost. Since I had never had the utility for such a service, I had naturally put it out of reach of my budget line. Before you can say 'ho' to that and go on to mention how you, too have had the rare occassion to indulge in such activities as the one listed above, let me tell you that it almost had my isoquant of marks production giving a negative utility to me.

However, the time/prof-telling-that-there-is-incorrect-data-in-a-question ratio was still high enough to prompt me to convert my Short Run Average Marks curve from SRAM1 to the higher SRAM2. Put in the terms of simple and plain microeconomics, I was able to salvage the question and make amends as far as the difference between the total and average costs are concerned...because believe it or not, the question that had the corection was the same which was cunning enough to create the confusion between the averages and the totals stuff....makes sense???

Having said that, I am still not sure if the answer discrimination that I followed despite the question market not being monopolistic is actually going to fetch me any examinee's surplus...actually, it is all up to the consumer (read the examiner, Dr Sumit Sarkar) to decide if he has got enough surplus in his hand (despite my first degree discrimination) to obtain any utility out of my answers...