Right now, I am in the process of showing that a group $G$ of order $35$ must be cyclic, for the purpose of then showing that there is a unique group of order $35$, namely $\mathbb{Z}_{35}$.
To that effect, I was interested in applying an argument seen in the answer to the linked question given by Ben. Ben is attempting to prove that $G$ such that $|G|=35$ must be cyclic by using the fact that the Third Sylow Theorem tells us that the number of subgroups of order $5$ must be equal to $1 \mod 5$ and the number of subgroups of order $7$ must be equal to $1 \mod 7$. In order to prove that there can be only one such subgroup of order $7$, he assumes that there are instead, $8$ such subgroups and attempts to arrive at a contradiction. He states that "if there are $8$ subgroups of order $7$, then each one contains $6$ elements plus the identity so there must be $6 \cdot 8 = 48$ distinct elements in the group", which since the order of $G$ is only $35$ must be a contradiction. My question is, how does he know that for any two of those $p$-subgroups, call them $H$ and $K$ that $H \cap K = \{e\}$? It's possible that is a Sylow-related result I am unaware of or missed, or it could be possible that that was an erroneous assumption on Ben's part.
Now, you may ask, "why don't you just ask Ben"? I would, were it not for the fact that Ben has only $35$ reputation, has not been seen on the site since 2015, and therefore, is very unlikely to answer me should I do so.
I thank you ahead of time.