A Logical Analysis of “This is Why I’m Hot”

This is why I’m hot,
I’m hot because I’m fly
You ain’t cause you’re not

This is a logical analysis of the song “This is why I’m Hot.”

Before we analyze this passage, we need to first put it in standard form using the rules of logic.

I’m hot because I’m fly
becomes
If I am fly then I am hot

You ain’t cause you’re not
becomes
If you are not hot, then you are not hot

and the conclusion is:
I am hot

We have two premises and one conclusion. Our premises are what is called a conditional. This is symbolized S—>P, it is read “If Subject then Predicate. All statements in an argument have what is called a Truth Value (TV), the truth value is either True (T) or False (F). For a conditional, the TV is always T unless the TV of the Subject is True and the TV of the Predicate is False.

To properly analyze the validity of an argument, we must use the Harry Jones method for logical analysis. To do this, we make the Conclusion have a TV of False and then we try to make the conclusion true. This is because, if an argument can have a all true premises and a false conclusion then it is an invalid argument.

We symbolize the argument as such:

• F = I am fly
• H = I am hot
• H2 = You are hot
• ~ = not

The entire argument is symbolized as:

F—>H / ~H2—>~H2 // H

Make the conclusion H false:

F—>H / ~H2—>~H2 // [H]-(f)

Apply that TV to all instances of H:

F—>[H]-(f) / ~H2—>~H2 // [H]-(f)

In the first premise we see that predicate of that conditional is false, in order to make the TV of the entire statement true, we must make the TV of F, false.

[(F(f))—>(H(f))]-(t) / ~H2—>~H2 // [H]-(f)

Premise 2 is not dependent on either the first premise or the conclusion, so we are free to make the TV of H2 false or true. We will make it false, which makes the value of ~H2 true. This in turn makes the whole premise, true:

[(F(f))—>(H(f))]-(t) / [(~(H2(f))(t))—>(~(H2(f))(t))]-(t) // [H]-(f)

Well, now we have all true premises and a false conclusion, therefore: