isn't question number 3 paradoxical?
though i guess you can settle it as invalid anyway thanks to premise 2.
An argument is valid if and only if, given the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
Regardless of whether the statements are a paradox, it does not follow from
a) Both premises in this syllogism are untrue
b) Words constitute all the content of any premise.
c) The words in this syllogism are all false.
If there were a third premise that stated that all words in a premise are false if a premise is false, then we might have a valid argument.
The trick with paradoxes is to ignore them if at all possible, because they're really rather fucking tricky.