Focusing a bit on the wrong answers:
A boxing conversion occurs when a value type value is converted to a reference type value, an object. It involves allocating memory from the garbage collected heap, creating an object header that identifies the object as being of the type of the value type and copying the value type value bits into the object. This is the conversion that creates the type system illusion that a value type derives from System.ValueType and System.Object. Boxing conversions were heavily used in .NET 1.x programs since the only collection types it supported where the classes in System.Collections, collections whose elements are Object. .NET Generics added in 2.0 made these classes instantly obsolete since that allowed creating the classes in System.Collections.Generic. Which can store a value without having to box it. So no.
Unboxing is the opposite conversion, going from a boxed object value back to the value type value. Not quite as expensive as boxing, it only involves checking if the type of the boxed object is of the expected type and copying the value type value bits. It requires a cast in C# and is prone to throwing exceptions when the boxed value type does not match. Same no as the previous one.
Identifiers marked with the const keyword are literal values that are directly compiled into the IL generated by the compiler. The alternative is the readonly keyword. Which requires a memory access to load the value and is thus always slower. A const identifier should always be private or internal, public constants have a knack for breaking a program when you deploy a bug fix that alters the value but don't recompile the assemblies that use the constant. Those assemblies will still use the old constant value since it was compiled into their code. A problem that can't happen with readonly values. So no.
A destructor (aka finalizer) considerably increases the cost of an object. The garbage collector ensures that a finalizer is called when an object is garbage collected. But to do so, it has to keep track of the object separately, such an object is put on the finalizer queue, waiting for the finalizer thread to get around to executing the finalizer. The object doesn't actually truly get destroyed until the next GC pass. You almost always have the class for such an object implement IDisposable so a program can invoke the duties of the finalizer early and not burden the runtime with doing it automatically. You call GC.SuppressFinalize() in your Dispose() method. Nothing worse than a finalizer that doesn't do anything, so no.
Value types exist in .NET for the express reason that they can be so much more efficient than reference types. Their values take a lot less memory than an reference type object and can be stored in CPU registers and the CPU stack, memory locations that are highly optimized in processor designs. They burden the language design since abstracting them as objects is a leaky abstraction that swallows cpu cycles undetectably, particularly a struct is a difficult type with a knack for breaking programs when you try to mutate them. But one that's important to avoid the kind of perf hit that super pure languages like Smalltalk suffer from. A pioneer OOP language where every value is an object and which influenced a large number of subsequent OOP languages. But rarely actually got used anywhere due to its poor performance without a clear path for the hardware engineers to make it as fast as languages that don't abstract the processor design away. Like C#. So that makes it E.
