It’s an example of logical fallacy, specifically a non sequitur. It actually combines a few related errors: non sequitur, hasty generalization, guilt by association, and false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

The reviewer is essentially saying: “If they cut corners on X, they must cut corners on Y”, which is a common logical error in making judgments based on incomplete information.

▲

ragall 10 hours ago | parent [-]

A logical error is not the same thing as a practical error.

▲

collingreen 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Is this equivalent to defending the broken clock as right twice a day?

	▲	ragall 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Another way to put it is that Logic deals with cause and effect situations with a correlation of 1. It's possible to have a correlation of 99%, which would be a logical error, but still a very useful bit of practical knowledge. In this case, I would definitely agree that people that act sloppily in one aspect of business will almost always do the same in other aspects. More generally, I'd say that most classical logical fallacies are actually useful rules of thumb.