That looks like about it to me, though you were supposed to indicate which laws you used at each step. To be more rigorous when asked to show the laws being used, apply one law in one place on each line.
Be sure to consider the validity of your result -- does it really match the original expression.
This brings up the point of what it means to "simplify" something. What is the metric by which one expression is deemed "simpler" than another expression? Fewest terms? Fewest gates? What constraints must be met.
The usual implication when "simplifying" a Boolean expression is for the end result to be either a SOP or a POS with each term/factor having as few variables as possible. The use of XOR is generally not allowed as it is not a basic Boolean operator. Are you sure that the use of an XOR is (1) allowed, and (2) is "simpler"?
Are you sure that what they ended up with is even correct? What does their solution yield for (ABC) = (001)? Does that agree with the original expression?
Why do you say that you are meant to simplify it and end up with an XOR in the result? Is that part of the problem statement?
If you really want to get an XOR into the expression, look at the truth table and see if you can break it into two halves such that the output in one half is the opposite of the output in the other half.
I get an expression involving one NOR gate and one XOR gate.
I'm more of a visual learner if you could come up with an example/similar expression and go through it please, I'd be able to understand it better.
Thanks