I think what your solution sheet is saying is straight up wrong. We cannot conclude, just from the inequality $0<\frac mn < 2$, that $\sup =2$. You need some more steps and more assumptions.
To prove that $s$ is the supremum of a set $A$, you need to prove two things.
- That $s$ is the upper bound of $A$.
- That any number smaller than $s$ is not the upper bound of $A$.
Let $$A=\left\{\frac mn| m,n\in\mathbb N, m<2n\right\}$$
You already proved that $2$ is the upper bound of $A$. Now, you need to prove that any number smaller than $2$ is not the upper bound of $A$. You can start doing this by saying one of the most common phrases in calculus: **Let $\epsilon > 0$.
Now, you need to prove that $2-\epsilon$ is not an upper bound of $A$. You can do this by proving that there exists some element $a\in A$ such that $a>2-\epsilon$.
To do this, think about what property $a$ needs to fulfill. You know that $a=\frac mn$ for some pair $m,n$. You also know that $a>2-\epsilon$.
You can write this out a bit and get
$$\frac mn > 2-\epsilon\\
m > 2n - \epsilon n$$
and note that the deduction above goes both ways. In other words, if you can find some $m,n\in\mathbb N$ such that $m>2n-\epsilon n$, then you will also have $a=\frac mn > 2-\epsilon$.
However, you have one more limitation, and that is that if you want $\frac mn$ to be an element of $A$, then $m<2n$ must also be true. This means that $m$ must be some value that is greater than $2n-\epsilon n$ and smaller than $2n$.
So, the question remains, can you find such a pair of values?
Hint: Think about what happens to the interval $(2n-\epsilon n, 2n)$ when $n$ is very large.