As the conclusion does follow from the given premise, the conclusion is logically valid in relation to the given premise. It appears that the premise is false.
Excellent, so you don't seem "confused" between validity and soundness, as some of our mathematically trained experts here have implied.
...
If educated people out of an entire field of study, collectively over time, appropriates a couple terms to denote a very specific technical meaning, the plain Jane common usage is likely divergent from its technical usage.
The terms “valid” and “sound” are technical terms, and when used in accordance to their technical use, they don’t even apply for inductive arguments—a category error, it makes. So, while you may use the terms in the same way Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, and Joe use it when discussing inductive arguments, the technical usage has no place.
But, you’re making a deductive argument, and while the five stooges can use the terms in common yet non-technical ways, just as they can with inductive arguments, the technical terms’ technical usage often trumps common usage when the discussion pertains to a technical field. No one really care how the almighty dictionary defines “kidnapping” while inside a courtroom. It’s technical usage is what then matters.
A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises. That’s how it’s used by trained logicians. Coming in and using it like the everyday dictionary explains its usage intentionally creates ambiguity where there should be none.
Validity doesn’t imply soundness whereas soundness implies validity — in accordance to technical usage.
A sound argument is superior to an argument that is merely valid.