Suppose I have a set $\mathrm{A}=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ and a reflexive relation $\mathrm R$ defined on $\mathrm A$, i.e.,
$$R\colon A\mapsto A\quad\textrm{and}\quad \mathrm R\textrm{ is reflexive.}$$
Is the relation quoted below a possible candidate for being $\mathrm{R}$ ?
$$\mathrm R=\{(1,1),(2,2)\}$$
My reasoning:
Since the definition of a reflexive relation $\mathrm R$ on $\mathrm A$ is that $a\mathrm Ra~\forall~a\in\mathrm A$, we have that the given relation is not reflexive on $\mathrm{A}$ and hence not a possible candidate for being $\mathrm R$. The main fact used here is that $3,4,5\in\mathrm A$ but $\require{cancel} a\cancel {\mathrm R} a$ for $a=3,4,5$
Your answer is correct, and there's nothing really further to comment on. $R$ would be reflexive if and only if $(a,a) \in R$ for every $a \in A$; however, since that doesn't hold for $a=3,4,5$, $R$ is not a reflexive relation on $A$.
Mostly just posting this to get this out of the unanswered queue. Posting as Community Wiki in particular since I have nothing further to add.