Two approaches to the question are by either arguing in favour of yes or no. Either approach should contain at least one paragraph that supports the opposing view, but the strengths and weaknesses should lend support to either a yes or no conclusion. For instance, if I were going to conclude that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist alongside evil and suffering in the world, then I would introduce the problem of evil by referring to Hume or the inconsistent triad. An opposing paragraph could be that God gave human beings free will, which is used in Augustine and Irenaeus' theodicies. Another paragraph supporting my conclusion, and responding to the previous paragraph, could be that there are natural evils in the world which an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God could prevent, but does not. I could add a paragraph stating what I thought the strongest strengths and weaknesses of the arguments given are. Finally, I could conclude that I think such a God does not exist because certain arguments were more convincing than others.