The premise is not sound (not proven: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/news/a28941/scientists-hypothesize-next-gen-quark-fusion-power-source/ ); therefore, invalid deductive argument.
However, the construction is not sound: the premise is not only unproven, but presents itself as proven; it therefore lacks a premise, but states the hypothesis as a premise, and restates the hypothesis as a conclusion. Almost fulfills the law of detachment, but does not, so invalid per construction as well as per lacking a true premise.
Again, it is not an Argument ("A" re previous question) and it almost qualifies as an invalid deductive argument ("C" re previous question). It may also be seen as an inductive argument, using the statement as an hypothesis, but as such it has a confirmation bias ("likely"). It is somewhat (almost) a non-cogent or weak inductive argument, but because the hypothesis-premise is neither true nor false, it is not an Argument of either the deductive or inductive form.
p.s. Added some additional comments (to previous question) shortly after posting "A," but the question was already closed, so posted them in its Comments.