Putting an argument into standard form

[Blackberry]

It's supposed to be simple stuff, but I've been racking my brain trying to figure the following particular argument out (it's for an assignment), trying different combinations in standard form, but I am stuck because I can never find out one combination which I think works.

If the Australian film industry becomes prosperous then more young Australians will study film-making. Australian films have become popular in America, and when anything becomes popular in America the industry that produces it becomes prosperous, so more young Australians will become film-making students.

For the main argument, I am at the moment thinking of putting it this way:

P1. If the Australian film industry becomes prosperous then more young Australians will study film-making.
P2. ???
--------------------
C. Therefore, more young Australians will become film-making students.

I think that the above is more correct than anything else I have come up with so far, but the second premiss is a problem, but I could be wrong with the whole thing anyway.

I also realise that there is a sub-argument to add on top of that, but I am more concerned with the main argument at this stage, as that is the hard part. Once I can get that figures, I can work out the rest easily enough.

Can anyone help me out with this?

[ComradeRed]

Arduous studies of logic pay off...

If the Australian film industry becomes prosperous then more young Australians will study film-making. Australian films have become popular in America, and when anything becomes popular in America the industry that produces it becomes prosperous, so more young Australians will become film-making students.

P1: Conditional If Australian films become prosperous, THEN more people will study film.
P2: Assertion Australian Films become popular in America
P3: Assertion Anything popular in America creates prosperity for that industry creating the popular apparatus

C: More people will study Australian films.

Problems:
1. Australian films aren't that popular in America. Other than Crocodile Dundee, which I don't think was Australian, no Australian movie is popular in the US.
2. Anything that is popular in America is a fad. 10 years ago ripped jeans were "in" now they make you look like a "hobo" (as if that were a bad thing). Today baggy pants are "in", and they will soon be out. Likewise, Australian movies are not-really "in", but if it is it will decline.
3. Point 3 is irrelevant, P1 and P2 are all that is really needed and P2 is faulty.

Hope that helps!

[Blackberry]

Thanks a lot for that.

The argument was meant to be taken in the abstraction, and not evaluated so whether Australian films really are popular in America was irrelevant in this case, but the thoroughness is appreciated, and I really should have made my instructions more clearer anyway.

I was stumped because I had never seen an example with three premisses as of yet -- we only dealt with two premisses maximum.

I had thought of premiss two, but I didn't see how those two premisses could support the conclusion, unless a sub-argument using one of the premisses as a conclusion was used, which I could never figure out.

[ComradeRed]

When it comes to philosophical analysis, always turn to Descartes' "Rules for the Direction of the mind": break things into as many pieces as needed, infer what you can, search for inconsistancies, etc. I broke it into three premises, though --as I said-- only two are needed.

But it is more of a paradigm like this: if P, then Q; A is B; B is P; therefore since A is true, and A is P, then Q must be true. However, this is a slippery slope (or as I was taught, the "camel's nose") fallacy.

It's good practice :)