Hint:
For $n=1$, $x<y\iff x<y$ obviously holds.
Now assume that for some $n$,
$$x<y\iff x^n<y^n.$$
Then by the rule of multiplication of inequalities,
$$x<y\land x^n<y^n\implies x^{n+1}<y^{n+1}$$
so that
$$x<y\implies x^n<y^n\implies x^{n+1}<y^{n+1}.$$
Now try the contrapositive.
Proof:
We have:
$x \in (A \cup B) \setminus (C \setminus B)$
iff $x \in (A \cup B) \land x \notin (C \setminus B)$
Then, $x \notin (C \setminus B)$, iff $\neg (x \in (C \setminus B))$, iff $\neg (x \in C \land x \notin B)$, iff $x \notin C \lor x \in B$.
So: $x \in (A \cup B) \land (x \notin (C \setminus B))$
iff $x \in (A \cup B) \land (x \notin C \lor x \in B)$
iff $[x \in (A \cup B) \land x \notin C] \lor [x \in (A \cup B) \land x \in B]$.
Since we always have $B \subseteq (A \cup B)$, we thus have [$x \in (A \cup B) \land x \in B$] iff $x \in B$.
Also, $[x \in (A \cup B) \land x \notin C]$, iff $[(x \in A \land x \notin C) \lor (x \in B \land x \notin C)]$, iff $[(x \in A \setminus C) \lor (x \in B \setminus C)]$.
Therefore: $[x \in (A \cup B) \land x \notin C] \lor [x \in (A \cup B) \land x \in B]$
iff $(x \in A \setminus C) \lor (x \in B \setminus C) \lor x \in B$
Since we always have $(B \setminus C) \subseteq B$, then we have:
$(x \in A \setminus C) \lor (x \in B \setminus C) \lor x \in B$
iff $(x \in A \setminus C) \lor x \in B$
iff $x \in (A \setminus C) \cup B$
Therefore, $x \in (A \cup B) \setminus (C \setminus B)$ iff $x \in (A \setminus C) \cup B$, and this means $(A \cup B) \setminus (C \setminus B) = (A \setminus C) \cup B$.
Best Answer
It appears that you're trying (without making it completely clear) to prove $A\cup B=B \Leftrightarrow A\subseteq B$ by showing that $A\cup B=B$ together with $A\not\subseteq B$ leads to a contradiction.
If you think that is a complete proof, how about this one, by the same principle:
This seems to follow exactly the same logic as your proof -- namely, considering $P\Leftrightarrow Q$ to be proved because I have shown that $\neg Q$ and $P$ together lead to a contradiction.
But there are odd numbers that are not prime -- such as $9$ -- so the claim is not actually true.