I really hate these kinds of questions when they're arbitrarily posed without a given list to work from. Is this for an assignment, or a general question? The problem here is that too many fallacies would fit the bill. Without a set of standing specific definitions to work from, what your person is doing by her statement is
- Making an appeal to probability while suppressing evidence or exhibiting gross confirmation bias
- Cherry-picking anecdotal evidence in order to draw a hasty generalization and jumping to conclusions
- Spotlighting an error and producing a failed composition to make a sweeping generalization
...and so on.
If you just look at the statement alone, though, it's only making one mistake. I can demonstrate as a haiku:
I've x'ed in the past,
Thus I'll x in the future.
It's the classic Humean problem, that outcomes of the past dictate - or even relate - to outcomes in the future. The rest is just additional evidence, there to obfuscate the answer by distracting you from the logical statement. Suppressed evidence, and similar charges related to the additional information are only rhetorical fallacies, not necessarily logical ones.