CAN YOU FOLLOW THIS LOGIC?

From the Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee to Study Golf, March, 2009:

Charge to the Committee
"The committee was charged by the President of the District and the Master Association to review the financial condition of the Golf Operation at Farmington Woods and to make recommendations for change if necessary."

"The Problem-The declining membership makes it very difficult for golf to cover its expenses."

"The Golf Operation Is Losing Income"

And what change did the committee recommend?

 "Condo funds now support both the pools and courts. The restaurant is partly funded from Condo funds, albeit as purchase minimums. Since all residents benefit from the existence of the golf course, we recommend that the Golf Operation also be partly subsidized whenever golf membership falls too low to support 100% of the total operation." (The course has lost approximately $350K since this statement was made in 2009.)

I got a "C" in Logic 101 in college but even I can find the fault in this. If the tests were this easy I'd have gotten an "A" in that class. I wonder what a study done by a neutral observer would have found? We'll never know.

Can you find the flaw in the argument? Please comment.