Question

the reasoning below is...
claim
reptiles can make affordable alternative pets.
evidence
fact: reptiles do not eat as much as birds and mammals do (the australian museum)
evidence
fact: a blue - tongued lizard or bearded dragon typically costs under $70 (the australian museum)
reasoning
more parents should consider purchasing reptiles, rather than dogs or cats, as pets.
strong reasoning: connects the evidence to the claim
weak reasoning: doesnt connect the evidence to the claim

Explanation:

The claim is that reptiles are affordable alternative pets. The evidence includes lower food consumption and low initial cost. The reasoning suggests parents choose reptiles over dogs/cats but does not explicitly link the evidence (affordability factors) to the claim. It skips connecting the cost/food facts to why reptiles are affordable alternatives, so it fails to bridge evidence and claim.

Answer:

Weak Reasoning: Doesn't Connect the Evidence to the Claim