I chose 1 and 3, for 1a i talked about what anselm was trying to do, his 1st argument, Gaunilo's response and how that prompted his 2nd argument and how it responded to Gaunilo's criticism, forgot to mention a priori though which sucked but i put some quotes and terms like reductio ad absurdum and mutatis mutandis, so hopefully they won't be too fussy xD. 1b i just spoke about Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' and 'to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles is self-contradictory, but to reject the triangle with its three angles'.
3a i spoke about it being a test and us being in the image of God etc, along with little references to how Hick sums things up here and there, wasn't sure on the natural evil thing so i used Hick's thing that it is perfectly suited to moral development and that natural disasters etc bring us closer together, and that without evil, including natural, we'd never increase in virtue or advance in any way.
3b i was running out of time, so just said that if either Augustine's or Iranaeus' theodicies failed, then a good God doesn't exist, used Phillips' criticism of Iranaeus that it led to the counter-intuitive notion that suffering is good as it helps people develop, as well as acting virtuously as it brings us closer to God, if both are good then it undermines our entire sense of morality, also mentioned that suffering in the holocaust caused people to turn away from God rather than to him, so the argument doesn't make sense, also talked about Schleiermacher for Augustine and that it's illogical to claim a perfect system went wrong, and that evil is not a privation, referencing the holocaust again as evil being a very active thing rather than just failing to meet standards set for us. Hopefully i don't do too badly