I don't believe that is the point they are making. They have, though some details have been jumped over, proved that the derivative of [itex]x^n[/itex] is [itex]n x^{n-1}[/itex] for n any positive integer. When they say "this is true in general", I think that they mean that it is true for n any number, not just a positive integer.
The most direct way to prove that the derivative of [itex]x^a[/itex] is [itex]ax^{a- 1}[/itex] for a any number is to use logarithms.
If [itex]y= x^a[/itex] then [itex]y= e^{ln(x^a)}= e^{a ln(x)}[/itex]. Assuming that you already know that the derivative of [itex]e^x[/itex] is [itex]e^x[/itex], the derivative of [itex]ln(x)[/itex] is [itex]1/x[/itex], and the chain rule (which is why they "haven't proved it yet"), then we can say
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx}= \left(e^{aln(x)}\right)\left(\frac{a}{x}\right)[/tex]
And, now, since [itex]e^{a ln(x)}= e^{ln(x^a)}= x^a[/itex], that says that
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx}= x^a\frac{a}{x}= ax^{a-1}[/tex].