In $\textit{A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory}$, the authors define $\mathbb{Z}_p$ as a set where $p$ is a prime number and $a,b$ form the rational number $a/b$ such that $p\nmid b$.
After describing this set, the authors mention "One easily checks using the remark following Corollary 1 to Proposition 1.1.1 that $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is a ring.
That remark is "If $p$ is a prime and $p\nmid b$ and $p\nmid c$, then $p\nmid bc$.
I'm puzzled by the semantics of suggesting the use of the remark to the corollary. I understand how this applies: if I have elements $a/b,c/d$, where $p\nmid b$ and $p\nmid d$, then $a/b+c/d=(ad+bc)/bd\Rightarrow p\nmid bd$. A similar calculation is done with multiplication. This definitely shows $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is closed.
For the sake of context, the next paragraph demonstrates $a/b$ is a unit implies $p\nmid a$ (and the converse) and all elements fo $\mathbb{Z}_p$ can be expressed as a power of $p$ times a unit. The conclusion is that all primes of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ are associate. (I'm totally fine with this part.)
Does the phrasing indicate that I use this corollary remark to justify the work showing why the other ring properties are true, or is it an end-all statement saying "because this is satisfied, it's a ring"?