As per the title, I'm trying to prove that a finite abelian group has a subgroup of order $n$ for every $n$ which divides $|G|$, and I think I have a solution, but I would like someone to verify this that it is correct.
Proof: Take a group $G$ that is finite and abelian. Suppose that for our desired result holds for all abelian groups with order less than $|G|$. Take any prime $p$ such that $|G| = p^{\alpha}m$ where $p$ does not divide $m$, so that by Theorem 12, $G$ has a subgroup of order $p^{\alpha}$, which we denote $H$. By our inductive hypothesis, $H$ has subgroups of order $p^{\alpha - 1}, p^{\alpha - 2}, \ldots, p^2, p$. Then, take the prime factorization of any integer $n$ for which $|G|$ divides $n$, say $n = x_1^{y_1}x_2^{y_2}\ldots x_z^{y_z}$ where $y_1,\ldots,y_z$ are primes which divide $|G|$.
For any of these factors, say $x_a^{y_a}$ and $x_b^{y_b}$, we recall that there are subgroups in $G$ with order equal to each of these terms, say $A$ and $B$. By Lagrange's Theorem, all non-identity elements in $A$ have order divisible by $x_a$, and the same may be said for elements in $B$. Since $x_a \neq x_b$ and both are prime, we see that $A \cap B = \{1\}$. By Proposition 13, we have $|AB| = \frac{|A||B|}{|A \cap B|} = \frac{x_a^{y_a}x_b^{y_b}}{1} = x_a^{y_a}x_b^{y_b}$, and since $G$ is an abelian group, Proposition 14 states that $AB$ is a subgroup.
Applying the previous result to the entire prime factorization of $n$, we therefore construct a subgroup of $G$ that has order $n$, and we are done. We never did use Cauchy's Theorem either, did we?
Theorem 12 is by Sylow and says that if $G$ is a finite group of order $p^{\alpha}m$ where $p$ is a prime and $p$ does not divide $m$, then $G$ has a subgroup of order $p^{\alpha}$.
Proposition 13 says that if $H$ and $K$ are finite subgroups of a group then $|HK| = \frac{|H||K|}{|H \cap K|}$.
Proposition 14 says that if $H$ and $K$ are subgroups of a group, $HK$ is a subgroup if and only if $HK = KH$.
My reasons for posting this are twofold; firstly, I haven't found a proof of this sort on the internet, so I am afraid that I made a mistake somewhere. The second reason is that Dummit and Foote request that Cauchy's Theorem be used in the proof, which I have not, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could point me to a proof that does use Cauchy's Theorem. Thanks so much!