Can Identify one argument from the problem sets 1-1 or 1-2 that no one else has yet posted on, if possible. Label which sentences or phrases are premises and which is the conclusion.* Cogent
"Cogent" is another term that's really important, because it's the standard for trusting an argument. If an argument is cogent, it's a trustworthy one. There are three qualities of a cogent argument:

It has believable premises--believable can vary though, because what one person might believe is not what another might believe. So, if you want your argument to be trusted, you need to know your audience. Some things should be believed no matter what though, like basic laws of physics for instance.
All relevant information is included--again this can be tricky, because different people have varying degrees of background knowledge. So one person might need more relevant information included than another. Another reason to know one's audience well.
It is valid--the argument must be valid. In logic, valid means having correct grammatical relationships between the phrases and sentences in the premises and the conclusions. It does not mean true or right. And validity looks very different between deductively valid and inductively valid.

(of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing
However, that's not what cogent means in the field of logic. Remember, the terms are more refined than how we use them in general conversation.

Validity
There are two kinds of validity (two ways of being valid): deductive and inductive. Deductive has one big drawback and one big advantage. It only works for information or data that we already have. This means that we can only draw conclusions for things that have already happened. Some people see that as a drawback. However, if we follow the deductive formats properly--called syllogisms--deductive logic is right, every time. That's a huge advantage. You can see how scientists could like deductive logic.

Inductive logic likewise has a drawback and an advantage. Inductive logic can be used to predict the future, something deductive logic cannot do. Obviously, this is a great advantage over deductive logic, which is limited to information we already have. However, and this is a big however, inductive logic--no matter how carefully done and how accurate the data--can be wrong. This is why we don't say that cogent logic is "true." Because if it's using inductive validity, it can be cogent, but end up wrong. If the future doesn't follow the pattern predicted, no matter how careful the lab technicians, no matter how smart the scientists, no matter how expert the pollsters, the best predictions can fail. Trustworthy is as high quality as we can get. That doesn't mean nothing is true. It just means that arguments about the future can't be true until the time passes and we can check. Incidentally, when Sherlock Holmes says he uses his powers of deduction to figure out who the culprit is (which Conan Doyle did all the time) he is wrong. Holmes used induction, not deduction, because he was guessing based on clues and didn't yet know.