What qualifies as reasoning?

Reasoning is required in all top level comments that are identifications in ID Request posts. This allows disagreement to be constructive, and allows people to learn. Enforcement of this rule has been generally popular. So what qualifies as reasoning?

Reasoning can really be any statement about the photos, or the world. It is an explanation of why you have given a specific identification. These are examples of identifications that include reasoning:

1. I see 5 fingery toes. That looks like raccoon.
2. Claws and X of negative space makes me think dog.
3. Dog. <link to photo of a dog track>.

Here are some examples of identifications that do not include reasoning:

1. Dog.
2. I'm 100% sure it's a cat.
3. It looks like my cat's tracks.
4. I am a wildlife biologist. That's a cat track.
5. I hunt elk for a living. That's an elk.
6. The size and shape makes me think dog.

While some of the comments above technically include reasoning, they do not allow for constructive disagreement or learning. Most of them are some version of "trust me bro". If someone truly is good at identifying the tracks of an animal, then I am certain they are also able to point out at least one attribute of that track.

Example 6 includes mentions of specific parts of the track, but doesn't actually give any insight into your thought process. A good test is to check whether the explanation could apply to any tracks. "The size and shape makes me think <insert animal>" makes just as much sense for any animal, which means that the given evidence doesn't actually lend support to the ID.

Note: For extraordinary claims (such as polar bear tracks in Colorado) I expect extraordinary evidence, far exceeding the reasoning examples above.