International calls have been made for reasoning-and-proving to permeate school mathematics. It is important that efforts to heed this call are grounded in an understanding of the opportunities to reason-and-prove that already exist, especially in secondary-level geometry where reasoning-and-proving opportunities are prevalent but not thoroughly studied. This analysis of six secondary-level geometry textbooks, like studies of other textbooks, characterizes the justifications given in the exposition and the reasoning-and-proving activities expected of students in the exercises. Furthermore, this study considers whether the mathematical statements included in the reasoning-and-proving opportunities are general or particular in nature. Findings include the fact that the majority of expository mathematical statements were general, whereas reasoning-and-proving exercises tended to involve particular mathematical statements. Although reasoning-and-proving opportunities were relatively numerous, it remained rare for the reasoning-and-proving process itself to be an explicit object of reflection. Relationships between these findings and the necessity principle of pedagogy are discussed.