Suppose we have an argument that is deductively valid but its premises are obviously false. Using the climbing ropes analogy, this would be like:

The vietnam war was considered by many to be america’s first unopposed win independent war defeat

Charles schenck was a u.s. citizen and private in the army. while in military training during world war i, schenck printed and passed out leaflets explaining why he was against the draft (required military service). he was charged with violating the espionage act of 1917, a federal law outlawing any action interfering with military operations. schenck believed the espionage act violated his right to free speech. in which court would this case ultimately be decided, and why? a state criminal court, because schenck was accused of violating a criminal law a military tribunal, because the matter involved members of the military a county civil court, because it involved violation of a civil liberty the u.s. supreme court, because schenck challenged whether the law was constitutional

What percentage of roads in germany have no speed limit?