Final answer:
While the statement about boiled eggs and salmon does not clearly fall under a specific logical fallacy, it could be considered a hasty generalization. This is because it concludes the likely goodness of boiled salmon based on the premise that boiled eggs are great, without proper evidence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'Boiled eggs are great. I'll bet boiled salmon would be great, too.' does not clearly contain a classic logical fallacy; however, it might be construed as a hasty generalization if one assumes that because boiled eggs are great, all boiled things would be great without adequate evidence. Nonetheless, this inference seems more like a casual guess rather than a logical argument meant to convince, and therefore might not constitute a formal fallacy at all.
A hasty generalization is a fallacy of weak induction that occurs when a conclusion is drawn from an inadequate sample. In contrast, a biased sample fallacy comes from using evidence that is selectively or unfairly presented. Looking at your examples, applying the biased sample might steer someone to believe one meal's quality at a restaurant dictates the quality of all meals, which ignores the possibility of variability (e.g., differences in breakfast vs. dinner service).