Respectfully no, but it would be relevant to understand the methodology of how they were able to discern a 1-in-4 statistic which seems, on its face at least, questionable at best. Maybe they're right and the methodology might be sound, but it doesn't change my perspective without that backing information to contextualize it.

A "primary source" also isn't in any way immune to rational inquiry. I don't mean for this parallel in any way to imply a relationship, but just look at our administration or any one of innumerable other examples to this end. Taking something at face value, to me at least, requires more than a decontextualized statement of fact when my immediate impulse is to question it (in this particular case).

For instance, define "job". Are we talking about a recommendation leading to a project for a contractor, or are we talking a full-time position? I mean, that's just the start. In what ways are they determining what constitutes "finding a job"? Talking to friends and friends of friends? Or directly messaging a corporation's page on Facebook?

There's a lot of squish here and I wish they were more forthcoming about what that statistic actually means.