I answered "other".

The thing is that your reasoning is thwarted by the very form of the question: luck.

Luck is about probability. And in order to assess probability, one has to possess a data set consequent enough to make comparisons and try to detect patterns (from which we can predict).

But the issue with the question at hand is that we have a data set of 1 (one) sample: us. We don't have anything to compare it with. It's like having a deck of card, drawing one randomly, and wondering about the odds after the picking and without knowing anything about the other cards, while wondering what are the odds of having picked that card after you picked it.

It's the main problem behind teleological reasoning (reasoning on goals and ends of things): it has confirmation bias from what you already experienced projected on things you haven't and trying to find patterns in the unknown. It's not hard to guess why this could go wrong.

As for luck, here's a chinese story illustrating the limits of the concept:

A farmer has his only horse flee in the wilderness. His neighbours tell him "oh my, you're really unlucky, this horse was so useful to your work, this is a bad thing!". He answers "Maybe".

The following day, the horse comes back with 5 wild horses. Neighbours say "wow, you're so lucky, you won 5 free horses, this is a good thing!". He answers "Maybe".

The following day, his son tries to tame one of the wild horses, falls and breaks his leg. Neighbours: "oh my, this is really unlucky, your son was such a huge help at the farm, this is a bad thing!". He answers "Maybe".

The following day, war is declared. The king is mobilizing forcefully every young man able to fight. Militaries see the farmer's son and decide not to pick him up because of his broken leg. Neighbours: "wow, you're so lucky, your son won't die in war, this is a good thing!". He answers "Maybe".

Morality: reasoning about unknowns and their consequences on our lives and very subjective and limited desires is often meaningless.