Let $a, b \in G$ where $G$ represents a group. Prove that $ab^na^{-1} = (aba^{-1})^n, n \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}$.
My goal is to master "prove by induction skill", so I'll try to be as explicit and consistent, as possible. Please, acknowledge the fact that my prove is technically correct.
So, first of all, there is at least one $n_0 = 1 \in \mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}$, for which the statement above holds true.
Now I have to show that statement will remain true for the $n_0 + 1$: $$ab^2a^{-1} = (aba^{-1})^1(aba^{-1})^1 = ab\underbrace{a^{-1}a}_\textrm{e}ba^{-1} = abba^{-1} = ab^2a^{-1}$$
The last thing to do is to show that $n + 1$ step won't become false regardless of what $n \geq n_0$ chosen: $$ab^{n + 1}a^{-1} = (ab^na^{-1})(aba^{-1}) = ab^n(a^{-1}a)ba^{-1} = ab^{n+1}a^{-1}$$
As such, the statement above must be true for each element in the specified set.
As mentioned in the comments above, you have a bit of an organizational issue. The goal is to show that $ab^{n}a^{-1}=(aba^{-1})^{n}$. It does us no good to show that $ab^na^{-1}=ab^na^{-1}$, we knew that to be true already.
For your induction step it should read something more like:
$\begin{array}{rlr}(aba^{-1})^{n+1}&=(aba^{-1})^n(aba^{-1})&\text{by properties of exponents}\\&=(ab^na^{-1})(aba^{-1})&\text{by induction hypothesis}\\&=ab^n(a^{-1}a)ba^{-1}&\text{by associativity}\\&=ab^nba^{-1}&\text{by properties of inverses}\\&=ab^{n+1}a^{-1}&\text{by properties of exponents}\end{array}$
Note that where we begin was one side of the desired equality and where we end is the other side of the desired equality. You could also have written this in the opposite order, having started with $ab^{n+1}a^{-1}$ and ended with $(aba^{-1})^{n+1}$ by having essentially reversed the steps outlined above.
It should also be clearly labeled where you used your induction hypothesis, perhaps to the side like this or if you are short on space and do it all in one line like this instead $\dots = (aba^{-1})^n(aba^{-1})\begin{smallmatrix}=\\I.H.\end{smallmatrix}(ab^na^{-1})(aba^{-1})=\dots$. Its not absolutely necessary that you explain every step like I have above, especially if your intended audience doesn't need such an explanation, but where the induction hypothesis is used should still be labeled.