Ambiguity? Non sequitur?

This is so vague I have no idea what it is about.

P1) Angels are just products of the mind

Implicit P) Products of the mind do not exist

Implicit P) Angels do not exist

P2) Everything is a product of the mind

C) Angels exist

We assert that angels are part of category X, then say category X contains things which don't really exist. We then try to claim that angels do in fact exist. This is contradictio in adjecto - an inconsistent set of premises which cannot jointly be true! If angels do not exist, they cannot exist and vice versa.

Next, there's an ambiguity fallacy in the sense that 'products of the mind' and 'existence' are not clearly defined. Does 'product of the mind' refer to perceptions such as anger or sadness (which can be argued to be 'real') or just concepts like unicorns (which are not 'real', at least, materially)? This makes the premises questionable. This is fallacious because we lump things for which there is actual evidence with things widely known to be supernatural (and thus unlikely to exist), like angels, when these are in fact very different.

This is not a valid argument. The conclusion clearly does not follow from the premises. How can "...are real" follow from "...don't exist?"