Is this a fallacy, and if so which?

Question

Recently, I had this conversation at the workplace:

me: I'm calling you because John needs access to this resource. I have access already and we need it to complete our work.
her: Why do you have access to this? You shouldn't.
me: Yes, I know it's not ideal, but it doesn't pose a security risk, and I'm working well with the access. The alternative, ideal solution, will be difficult to implement. Maybe we can get the access now and start working on the ideal solution.
her: I'm going to remove your access from the resource.
me: But we will not be able to work for months if you do that, until the alternative solution is implemented.
her: If I give you access, because you already have it, the ideal solution will never be completed.

I'm interested in the last line, actually, the rest was just for context.

I think the formal structure would be this:

You need to do X to have Y, but since you already have Y, you will never do X. I will take away Y from you, so you will do X.

I have heard something similar before: "If we just give poor people money, they will stop working and become lazy"

Is there a name for this concept?

Answer 1

If one were to examine the last sentence, one would consider this a non-sequitur.

Simply put, in the best case, the logical path of implication is not clear to get from "letting you keep your access" to "the project won't be completed". Is it possible one could make an argument from that premise and enthymemes to the conclusion, sure. Maybe you're a New Zealand spy trying to sabotage the project and your boss has found you out. But the context presented simply doesn't warrant the conclusion. Formally speaking, therefore, it's an example of a non-sequitur.