This is to show that one can solve (e) and similar questions in a fully automatized way.
One is asked to show that $U$ and $W$ are independent, let us be more ambitious and try to compute the distribution of $(U,W)$. If this distribution is a product, we are done.
Question How to compute the distribution of any random variable $Z$?
Answer By writing $E(\varphi(Z))$ as the integral of $\varphi$ with respect to a measure $\mu$, for every (bounded measurable) function $\varphi$. Then $\mu$ is the distribution of $Z$.
And this is actually often quite easy to do...
Let us see what happens for $Z=(U,W)$. The first step is to replace $Z$ by a function of $(X_1,X_2)$, in the case at hand,
$$
\varphi(Z)=\varphi(\min\{X_1,X_2\},\max\{X_1,X_2\}-\min\{X_1,X_2\}).
$$
Now the RHS is a (quite ugly) function of $(X_1,X_2)$ but this does not matter. The only important thing is that the distribution of $(X_1,X_2)$ has density $f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)$, hence, like for any function of $(X_1,X_2)$, by definition of the distribution of $(X_1,X_2)$, one has
$$
E(\varphi(Z))=\int\varphi(\min\{x_1,x_2\},\max\{x_1,x_2\}-\min\{x_1,x_2\})f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2.
$$
Up to this point, everything is general. Now one begins to use the max/min thing. This forces us to decompose the integral into two parts, one for the domain where $x_1\le x_2$ and the other for the domain $x_1>x_2$. This decomposition yields $E(\varphi(Z))$ as $(*)+(**)$ with
$$
(*)=\int\varphi(x_1,x_2-x_1)f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)\mathbf{1}_{x_1<x_2}\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2,
$$
and
$$
(**)=\int\varphi(x_2,x_1-x_2)f_1(x_1)f_2(x_2)\mathbf{1}_{x_1>x_2}\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{d}x_2.
$$
Recall that our goal is to write $E(\varphi(Z))$ as
$$
(o)=\int\varphi(u,w)\mathrm{d}\mu(u,w),
$$
for a given measure $\mu$. Let us rewrite $(*)$ and $(**)$ with this goal in mind. The changes of variables $[u=x_1,w=x_2-x_1]$ in $(*)$ and $[u=x_2,w=x_1-x_2]$ in $(**)$ lead to
$$
(*)=\int\varphi(u,w)f_1(u)f_2(u+w)\mathbf{1}_{w>0}\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}w,
$$
and to
$$
(**)=\int\varphi(u,w)f_1(u+w)f_2(u)\mathbf{1}_{w>0}\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}w.
$$
Comparing $(o)$ with $(*)+(**)$, one sees that the only way to make them equal for every $\varphi$ is that $\mathrm{d}\mu(u,w)=g(u,w)\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}w$ with
$$
g(u,w)=[f_1(u)f_2(u+w)+f_1(u+w)f_2(u)]\mathbf{1}_{w>0}.
$$
We are done and two things are to be noted: first, all these steps are fully automatic, and second, the formula for $g$ is valid for any $(U,W)$ based on independent $X_1$ and $X_2$ with densities $f_1$ and $f_2$.
In the case at hand, $f_i(x)=\lambda_i\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_i x}$ for $x>0$, hence, for every $u>0$ and $w>0$,
$$
g(u,w)=\lambda_1\lambda_2\mathrm{e}^{-(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)u}[\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_1w}+\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_2w}].
$$
The function $g(u,w)$ is a product $g_1(u)g_2(w)$ hence $(U,W)$ is independent.
And naturally, this proves simultaneously that the functions $g_1$ and $g_2$ are the densities of the distributions of $U$ and $W$, up to multiplicative positive constants.