(A) Australia has considerably fewer species of carnivorous mammals than any other continent does but about as many carnivorous reptile species as other continents do.
Eliminate: This is a factual statement mentioned in the argument, but it is not the conclusion. It's more of a premise.
(B) In ecosystems in which there is relatively little food, carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage relative to carnivorous reptiles.
Eliminate: This is a general statement that explains why carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage, but it doesn't tie the explanation specifically to Australia. It could be a supporting point, not the main conclusion.
(C) The unusual sparseness of Australia’s ecosystems is probably the reason Australia has considerably fewer carnivorous mammal species than other continents do but about as many carnivorous reptile species.
Keep: This option directly connects the sparseness of Australia's ecosystems with the specific difference in species between mammals and reptiles, making it the most comprehensive conclusion based on the argument.
(D) The reason that carnivorous mammals are at a disadvantage in ecosystems in which there is relatively little food is that they must eat much more in order to survive than carnivorous reptiles need to.
Eliminate: This is an explanation of why mammals are at a disadvantage, but it doesn't address the main conclusion about why Australia has fewer carnivorous mammal species.
(E) Because Australia’s ecosystems are unusually sparse, carnivorous mammals there are at a disadvantage relative to carnivorous reptiles.
Eliminate: While this is close, it’s more of a supporting point rather than the main conclusion. It doesn't fully explain the comparison with other continents.
Conclusion:
After eliminating the options that either restate premises or only partially address the argument, we are left with Option C. This option ties all the elements of the argument together, making it the correct answer.