is irrelevant to proving whether my thought aligned in a logical fashion with a given premise versus my dad, regardless of any commentary on the premise itself.Which is value-based, which is what I'm getting at, because in actuality, you didn't need a car to leave. You could have used any of the millions of other options, or not left at all.
You're not understanding what I'm trying to say. The premise is given. This is our assumption. Both needed cars. That which FOLLOWS from the premise....Here is what you're forgetting. You left off entirely a premise. No person has just one goal, they have multiple priorities, and they must weigh the cost and benefits of them all the time to determine what actions to take (which is subjective). Your dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in his car. At the time, this was a higher priority than leaving quickly. Therefore, his decision does not contradict the premise. You clearly did not have this priority, so from your perspective, waiting the extra 10 minutes was illogical. But even then, you did it, because you had the priority of wishing to maintain a good relationship with your dad (or something similar), so it wasn't actually illogical.
...is it logical? Or not?
Calling into question the premise itself changes the whole situation and doesn't really answer whether a line of thought that follows is logical or not.
I think you have to understand the function of a premise when one discusses logic:But an entirely objective premise cannot be made in regards to human goals. Every goal is entirely subjective. The only objective premises that exist are natural laws, physics n' such.
premise (logic) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia