Help with missing step in the following proof:
In order to show that the equality above holds for all A,B , we need to show that (1) $$A \setminus (A \cap B) \subseteq (A \cup B) \setminus B$$ and (2) $$ (A \cup B) \setminus B \subseteq A \setminus (A \cap B)$$
For a given $x$ , $A \setminus (A \cap B) = \{ x \in A \ | \ x \notin B \} $ . Given that $ x \notin (A \cap B) \iff x \notin A \text{ or } x \notin B$ , it follows that: $x$ is in $A$ and $x$ is not in $A$ , or $x$ is not in $B$. Therefore, since $A \cap A^{c} = \emptyset$ , $x$ is in A and $x$ is not in $B$.
Conversely, for (2) we have, $$x \in (A \cup B) \ | \ x \notin B$$
Then $x$ is in $A$ or $x$ is in $B$, bt $x$ is not in $B$. Therefore, given that $B \cap B^{c} = \emptyset$ , we have that $x$ is in $A$ but not in $B$.
Two big problems I see:
I haven't actually shown that they are subsets of each other, though I can clearly see it. A similar proof presented in lecture, the lecturer translates the "natural language" sentence back into formal set logic showing that they are equal.
I was told that starting from the L.H.S, and then starting from R.H.S and arriving at some intermediate conclusion which is the same for both is not a valid proof method. And this seems to be exactly what happened here.
For completeness, here is the kind of proof the lecturer is expecting:

Intended answer can be found here. In particular , the intermediate step for (1) is the fact that