Show that if $A$ and $B$ are sets, then $A \subseteq B$ if and only if $A \cap B = A$. I'm working through a real analysis textbook, and it starts out with set theory. The first exercise is

Show that if $A$ and $B$ are sets, then $A \subseteq B$ if and only if $A \cap B = A$.

I think I proved it correctly but I'm not sure. Here's what I did. I proved that if $A \subseteq B$, then $A \cap B = A$ the same way as this answer did (https://math.stackexchange.com/a/446114/93114), but I want to make sure I proved the converse correctly because it seems really easy (yes it's the first problem in the book, but still) and math usually isn't this easy for me, even the basic stuff!
Proof of "If $A \cap B = A$, then $A \subseteq B$."
If $x \in A \cap B$, then $x \in A$ and $x \in B$, but this applies to all $x \in A$ because $A \cap B = A$. So, for any $x \in A$, we know that $x \in B$, so $A \subseteq B$.
Am I on the right track?

Here is another way to approach this type of problem: start with the most complex part (here: $\;A \cap B = A\;$), expand the definitions so that you get from the set level to the element level, then simplify using predicate logic, and finally go back to the set level as suggested by the shape of the formula.
In this case,
\begin{align}
& A \cap B = A \\
\equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"set extensionality, i.e., the definition of $\;=\;$ for sets"} \\
& \langle \forall x :: x \in A \cap B \equiv x \in A \rangle \\
\equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"definition of $\;\cap\;$"} \\
& \langle \forall x :: x \in A \land x \in B \equiv x \in A \rangle \\
\equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"logic: $\;p \equiv p \land q\;$ is one way to write $\;p \Rightarrow q\;$"} \\
& \langle \forall x :: x \in A \Rightarrow x \in B \rangle \\
\equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"definition of $\;\subseteq\;$"} \\
& A \subseteq B \\
\end{align}
