What type of argument is the following passage?

According to your question, People magazine writers and editors posit this remarkable hypothesis on their own (no references, and they apparently do not have the "Ph.D., physics" title after their name(s)).

Understanding of quarks ---> ability to develop cold fusion.

Therefore, understanding of quarks probably ---> development of cold fusion.

If A, B.

Therefore, A probably B.

This approaches a weak inductive argument, but premise A ---> B is stronger than conclusion A probably ---> B; therefore it is not even a valid weak inductive argument. Also, it has ~ one premise, but usually valid arguments have a major premise and a minor premise. If the major and/or minor premises are common-sense dubious (e.g., to state the negative: People staff know their cold fusion quarkery (i.e., not quackery, i.e., their premise is not a quark, oops not a crock), then their premised line of reasoning is probably not dubious, but valid, would you not agree?). If the premise seems unlikely, then it's not even a weakly inductive guesstimate.

A kinder way to say it's not an Argument (why the scary Capitalization?) is to say People magazine has put forth an uncogent argument.