Your answer isn't very good. First of all, you introduce all kinds of notation, $v,w$, $v_0,v_1,v_2$, $e_0,e_1,e_n$, and then never use them again. Second, proving that there is a walk between two vertices with an edge between them is unnecessary and does not contribute to your proof. Lastly, and most importantly, your proof ends with "from the definition of a path, it can be proven that if there exists a walk, then there exists a path." You can't just state that - that's what you were asked to prove!
My suggestion would be to try proving this by contrapositive.
Assume that there is no path from $v$ to $w$. Suppose you've got a walk starting at $v$. How you gonna get your walk to end at $w$?
Make this rigorous by building up a proof straight from the definitions. If you can't do that, you should go back over the definitions of each, draw out some examples, and make sure you understand exactly what it is you're trying to prove.
Here's an example of a connected $3$-regular graph with no Hamiltonian path. Let $H_1,H_2,H_3$ be three vertex-disjoint copies of $K_4$. For each $i\in\{1,2,3\}$ choose an edge $e_i$ of $H_i$ and subdivide it, making the midpoint of $e_i$ into a new vertex $x_i$. Finally, take a new vertex $y$ and add edges $x_1y,x_2y,x_3y$. This connected $3$-regular graph on $16$ vertices does not have a Hamiltonian path, because removing the vertex $y$ breaks it into three components.
Best Answer
b) consider a path $v_0\dots v_k$ of length $k$ (existing for part a) and for Chandru's construction) such that $v_i \neq v_j$ $\forall i\neq j$.