Here's what I'm thinking when doing the test:

Q2. 100*50 vs 100*90, not the same people: 100*90 better, a developed country is better than a developing country;

Q3 (A B). 100*100 vs 200*64: 100*100 better,  a developed country is better than a developing country, though its population is smaller;

Q4 (K K-). 500*55 vs 500*55-40: 500*55 better, a society without slavery is better;

Q5 (K K+). 500*55 vs 500*55+7: 500*55 better, a society without forced labor is better;

Q6 (A A+). 100*100 vs 100*101+100*25: 100*100 better, a society with a smaller wealth gap is better, though its population is smaller;

Q7 (A+ B). 100*101+100*25 vs 200*64: 200*64 better, a society with a smaller wealth gap is better;

Q8 (repeat). I don't understand... Nothing changed, right? Choose "same" anyway;

Q9 (A Z). 100*100 vs 51200*4: 100*100 better, same to Q3;

Q10 (K K++). 500*55 vs 500*55+70: 500*55+70 better, we successfully created something out of thin air;

Q11 (K K+-). 500*55 vs 501*55-25+15: 500*55 better, the little bonus doesn't worth a bigger decline;

Q12&Q13. I don't understand... These are comparable, right?

Q14. 100*100 vs 200*64 vs 51200*4: 100*100 the best, same to Q3, Q9;

The result (averagism) gives 2 bullets:

1. You said a life worth living makes the world worse by being lived.

Q5. I don't think a life scored 7 compared to 55 is "worth living" or "modest good". "Think of a couple who want a child, and would raise it well"? It doesn't make sense. Compared to Q10, "a modest good life" should be scored 40+, and I believe 500*55+40 is better than 500*55.

2. Everyone gains, good lives are added, and you called it worse.

Q6. Again I can hardly treat a life scored 25 compared to 100 as "good". In the distributing malaria nets example, it's not 100*100 vs 100*101+100*25, but 100*101+100*25 vs 100*100+120*25, and the latter is better.