In the same way, by just looking at the first two equations, you would obtain $x=5.5$, $\>y=0.5$; but these values don't satisfy the third equation. But there is no flaw in the logic – neither in your example, nor in mine.
A system $\Psi$ of equations defines implicitly a solution set $S$: Any point ${\bf x}$ of the ground set $X$ agreed upon in advance can easily be tested whether it satisfies all the equations. When it does, then ${\bf x}$ belongs to $S$. Solving such a system $\Psi$ means converting this implicit representation of $S$ into an explicit representation in the form of a list $S=\{{\bf x}_1, {\bf x}_2,\ldots, {\bf x}_r\}$, or a parametric representation $S=\bigl\{{\bf x}(\iota)\>\bigm|\>\iota\in I\bigr\}$, where $I$ is a specified index set, and $\iota\mapsto {\bf x}(\iota)$ is a "function expression".
Usually a solving process consists in a sequence $${\bf x}\in \Psi\Rightarrow\ldots\Rightarrow\ldots\Rightarrow\ldots\Rightarrow {\bf x}\in S'\ ,$$
where $S'$ is a certain set of points ${\bf x}\in X$ resulting in the computation, as in our example. But this proves only the following: If a point ${\bf x}\in X$ aspires to belong to $S$, then it has to be a member of $S'$, in other words: that $S\subset S'$.
We now have to test each member ${\bf x}\in S'$ (hopefully finitely many) whether it actually satisfies all the given conditions. The ${\bf x}$ that pass this test belong to $S$, the others have to be thrown away, that's all. In the example at hand no ${\bf x}$ remains, which means that in fact $S=\emptyset$. There is no logic gone astray here.