Here's what the trend is (Money Spent = Increase, Drugs Patented = Decrease, Profits = Increased).
Now what conditions would result in the 3 trends?
A.) CORRECT because more stringent government regulations would mean an increase in money spent to be in line with stipulated government codes. Furthermore, more stringent regulations would result in fewer newer drugs getting patented because of the high bar set for any such drug to make it to the market. Finally, a reduction in the number of available drugs means fewer competition, implying more market dominance and higher profits.
B) INCORRECT - Increased competition results in lower prices to consumers because consumers have a wider range of alternatives to choose from {new edit} - looking at this again this is definitely a contender but this really has no bearing on increase in profits because research =|=going to market. Drugs have to pass regulations...this option just doesn't go well with me...
C) INCORRECT - C could increase the money spent by meaning additional payments or funding to Universities but the word collaborative connotes 'sharing' so perhaps costs could be underwritten by both Universities and Drug companies (not defininite so scratch that). Also this option has no bearing on a reduction of the number of drugs patented. Universities are not primarily profit making entities so I don't see how getting involved would drive up profits (yes they may make profits but that is not their primary focus). This option doesn't stand on solid ground. ELIMINATE
D) INCORRECT - Duplication has no bearing on money spent. Also has no bearing on a reduction in patents. Duplication would actually reduce profits overall
E) INCORRECT - Actually goes against the 3rd trend. Advertising is a cost, so an increase in advertising could reduce profits
