I know I can but if you’ve already got it up that would be easier and I feel it’s common courtesy to cite your sources. But alright, I will look for it on my own.

I like reading dry academic shit, it’s a certain disorder I’ve developed over the years.

Edit: I found this article which an almost identical section but the number in question was 14% rather than 24? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4484276/

As a rule you should just provide the sources you're quoting from.

Otherwise, it just looks like it's made up or the source is shitty so you don't want to share the source because it would undermine what you're quoting.

Just a thought for you.

Not providing a proper link or proper reference (where link unavailable) is rather dodgy (& bad form) on the web, which was invented to solve this exact problem.

Sending people to go hunting for sources leaves much to chance, and they may fail to locate them. It's simply not a logical way to support a claim or convince skeptics a claim is true if you care about your claim.

No one is obligated to care about your argument more than you, especially if you won't care enough to support it properly.